arXiv:1605.02731v1 [astro-ph.EP] 9 May 2016 is(O mgn a lydaciia oei hsad- this in role beyond critical separations a op- probing played adaptive by or- has High-contrast vancement five imaging systems (AO) over 1). planetary tics to Figure extrasolar AU) AU; among mag- (5–30 (0.01–5000 of magnitude System order of Solar single ders the a in from expanded nitude has giant etiaigi h r edn pt n transition- and to up the systems, leading optics era adaptive extreme the towards ing in imaging rect planets. the giant represent for- spectroscopically extrasolar and — architecture, characterize image giants directly the to gas — motivations of main goals atmospheres science and plan- three mation, extrasolar These of properties ets. physical photospheric and composition, dynamics, condensates, chemical atmospheric conditions, structure, initial internal the informa- about in unparalleled tion originated providing that atmospheres, photons imag- planetary capturing distances, directly In orbital entails unexplored separations. ing probing orbital and to in timescales addition different op- planets on fragmentation) dynamical giant cloud erate and , instability, of disk (core origin scattering, mechanisms more the theo- multiple a novel for which inspiring fueled migration, framework and has complex formation AU of of ries thousands and hundreds utn eateto srnm,21 pewy tpC1400 78712 Stop Speedway, TX 2515 Austin, Astronomy, of Department Austin, [email protected] vrteps w eae h ria rhtcueof architecture orbital the decades two past the Over hspdggclrve umrzstefil fdi- of field the summarizes review pedagogical This rpittpstuigL using 2016 typeset 11, Preprint May version Draft 2 1 coadOsraoyadteUiest fTxsat Texas Fellow. Prize of McDonald University the and Observatory McDonald & opsto,eouin n rgno lnt pnigabodrange ultim broad to a discovery spanning of headings: planets telescopes pace Subject of the space-based origin increase and and will evolution, ground- limits composition, of detection deeper generation and next the and < f3–0 Ui 0.6 is AU 30–300 of rn npae rqec ihhs as in lnt r on a found are any planets reveal giant not : does Jupite host hot bins with as mass frequency rare stellar planet as individual in about into trend are sample imaging this direct Dividing to accessible regularly ieaue ae nosrain f34uiu n igeyug( young single meta-analysis overview and statistical unique practical 0.1–3.0 384 a a between of masses observations with and on conclude Based limit, I literature. deuterium-burning instruments. the o dedicated below emphasis particular and with imaging near wit high-contrast in suppres instruments to progress recent strategies planet-finding post-processing dedicated and few last observing innovative the systems, especially and optics decade self- past adaptive of the atmospheres over the matured survey rapidly and has outside-in the from systems 1 .%o G tr,and , FGK of 4.1% ihcnrs dpieotc mgn sapwru ehiu opr to technique powerful a is imaging optics adaptive High-contrast M Jup noeigpaeayms bet at objects planetary-mass Uncovering . 1. A INTRODUCTION T E tl mltajv 5/2/11 v. emulateapj style X lnt n aelts eeto lnt n aelts aeu p gaseous satellites: and planets — detection satellites: and planets − +0 0 . . 7 5 M suightsateouinr oes h otmsiegatp giant massive most The models. evolutionary hot-start assuming % ⊙ MGN XRSLRGATPLANETS GIANT EXTRASOLAR IMAGING < h vrl curnert f5–13 of rate occurrence overall the , .%o wrs okn owr,eteeaatv pissyste optics adaptive extreme forward, Looking dwarfs. M of 3.9% ∼ 0A and AU 10 rf eso a 1 2016 11, May version Draft rna .Bowler P. Brendan James ABSTRACT , pcfi omto ot,utnln h rgnof origin necessarily the must untangling companions about 2006; route, Except abun- planetary-mass clues or formation offer imaged architectures systems specific Brown the 2014). individual & where a Basri of al. cases (e.g., patterns et rare Chabrier dance few exercise the 2007; 2000; in intellectual al. et well-trodden Chabrier al. a et Oppenheimer is dwarfs and subtraction. strategies PSF observing for creative non- solutions to post-processing general, led optics also adaptive mostly has early of systems at and use instruments demographics facility Making resulting optimized the efficiency separations. and detec- the wide formation a null about planet over these information of spanning valuable dismaying, targets provide Although of tions hundreds surveys. a on dozen only thousands spent despite orbits; hours made wide mas- of been on have that discoveries rare realization of exceedingly handful gradual are the planets impor- been sive most has the Among results . tant surface low atmo- at dust-rich Fomalhaut; and spheres to methane-free, red, companion unexpectedly optically-bright and ob- the be- understood) like poorly orbits still jects ultra-wide (and enigmatic on AU; 100 planets yond dwarfs; brown sur- companions orbiting of planetary-mass number including a discoveries of experienced prising phase images early first this the planets, deliver to lar sensitivi- gen- addition will unprecedented In next that reach ties. the and telescopes for contrasts and set ultra-high expectations instruments has of baseline 2015 eration and to stage 2000 high-contrast the approximately of spanning period “classical” imaging This telescopes. class ebSaeTelescope Space Webb itnusiggatpaesfo o-asbrown low-mass from planets giant Distinguishing 1,2 pcl os.Ti eiwsummarizes review This noise. speckle s uiosgatpaes ietimaging Direct planets. giant luminous M ≈ Jup ihsalrinrwrigangles working inner smaller with er ihteavn fhigh-order of advent the with bevtoa eut,discoveries results, observational n –0 y)sassann stellar spanning stars Myr) 5–300 b h rhtcue fplanetary of architectures the obe pcaie ooarps and , specialized h fde mgn uvy nthe in surveys imaging deep of opnosa ria distances orbital at companions fmse n ages. and masses of on 2.8 round saeaon -iestars. -like around are rs tl a h demographics, the map ately flresaesresand surveys large-scale of , WFIRST statistically-significant − +3 2 . . 7 3 fB stars, BA of % lanets n h hrymeter- thirty the and , oafide bona lanets ms extraso- 2 1996 2006 2016 75 )

Jup 10 Mass (M

1

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 Separation (AU)

Fig. 1.— Substellar companions discovered via radial velocities (gray circles) and direct imaging (red circles) as of 1996, 2006, and 2016. Over this twenty period the number of directly imaged companions below 10 MJup has steadily increased from one (–3932 b in 2004) to over a dozen. The surprising discovery of planetary companions at extremely wide separations of hundreds to thousands of AU has expanded the architecture of planetary systems to over five orders of magnitude. Note that the planets are minimum masses (msini) and the directly imaged companion masses are inferred from evolutionary models. RV-detected planets are from .org (Wright et al. 2011; Han et al. 2014) and are supplemented with a compilation of RV-detected brown dwarfs from the literature. Imaged companions are from Deacon et al. (2014) together with other discoveries from the literature. be addressed as a population and in a statistical man- Marois et al. 2010a; Traub & Oppenheimer 2010; ner. This review is limited in scope to self-luminous Mawet et al. 2012b; Davies & Kasper 2012). companions detected in thermal emission at near- and 2. OPTIMAL TARGETS FOR HIGH-CONTRAST IMAGING mid-infrared wavelengths (1–5 µm) with masses between Planets radiatively cool over time by endlessly releas- ≈1–13 MJup with the understanding that multiple formation routes can probably produce objects in this ing the latent heat generated during their formation “planetary” mass regime (see Section 5). Indeed, the and gravitational contraction. Fundamental scaling rela- separations regularly probed in high-contrast imaging tions for the evolution of brown dwarfs and giant plan- surveys— typically tens to hundreds of AU— lie beyond ets can be derived analytically with basic assumptions the regions in protoplanetary disks containing the of a polytropic equation of state and degenerate electron highest surface densities of solids where core accretion gas (Stevenson 1991; Burrows & Liebert 1993). Neglect- operates most efficiently (e.g., Andrews 2015). Direct ing the influence of lithium burning, deuterium burning, imaging has therefore predominantly surveyed the wide and atmospheres, which act as partly opaque wavelength- orbital distances where alternative formation and migra- dependent boundary conditions, substellar objects with tion channels like disk instability, cloud fragmentation, different masses cool in a similar monotonic fashion over and planet-planet scattering are most likely to apply. time: In the future, the most efficient strategy to detect even −5/4 5/2 smaller super- and terrestrial worlds close to their Lbol ∝ t M . (1) host stars will be in reflected light from a dedicated Here Lbol is the bolometric , t is the object’s space-based optical telescope. age, and M is its mass. By focusing on the optimal targets, early dis- This steep mass-luminosity relationship means that coveries, largest surveys, and statistical results, luminosity tracks are compressed in the this observationally-oriented overview aims to com- regime (≈13–75 MJup) and fan out in the planetary plement recent reviews on formation regime with significant consequences for high-contrast (Chabrier et al. 2007; Helled et al. 2013; Chabrier et al. imaging. A small gain in contrast in the brown dwarf 2014; Helling et al. 2014), atmospheric models regime results in a large gain in the limiting detectable (Marley et al. 2007a; Helling et al. 2008, Allard et al. mass, whereas the same contrast gain in the planetary 2012; Marley & Robinson 2015), evolutionary mod- regime has a much smaller influence on limiting mass els, (Burrows et al. 2001; Fortney & Nettelmann (Figure 2). It is much more difficult, for example, to 2009), observational results (Absil & Mawet 2009; improve sensitivity from 10 MJup to 1 MJup than from Lagrange 2014; Bailey 2014; Helling & Casewell 2014; 80 MJup to 10 MJup. Moreover, sensitivity to low masses Madhusudhan et al. 2014; Quanz 2015; Crossfield 2015), and close separations is highly dependent on a ’s and high contrast imaging instruments and speckle youth and proximity. In terms of limiting detectable suppression techniques (Guyon et al. 2006; Beuzit et al. planet mass, observing younger and closer stars is equiv- 2007; Oppenheimer & Hinkley 2009; Biller et al. 2008; alent to improving speckle suppression or integrating for 3

100

−10 mag 5 Gyr ) Jup 1 Gyr 500 Myr 10 100 pc 30 pc −5 mag 10 pc 100 Myr −2 mag NICI 30 Myr +2 mag Planet Mass (M 1 +5 mag 10 Myr 5 Myr

10 100 10 100 10 100 Semimajor Axis (AU)

Fig. 2.— The influence of contrast (left), age (middle), and distance (right) on mass sensitivity to planets. The bold curve in each panel shows the 50% sensitivity contour based on the median NICI contrast from Biller et al. (2013) for a 30 Myr K1 star at 30 pc. The left panel shows the effect of increasing or decreasing the fiducial contrast curve between –10 magnitudes to +5 magnitudes. Similarly, the middle and right panels show changes to the fiducial age spanning 5 Myr to 5 Gyr and distances spanning 10 pc to 100 pc. Planet absolute magnitudes depend steeply on mass and age. As a result, a small gain in contrast in the brown dwarf regime corresponds to a large gain in limiting mass, but the same contrast gain in the planetary regime translates into a much smaller gain in mass. Mass sensitivity is particularly sensitive to stellar age, while closer distances mean smaller physical separations can be studied. longer. Note that in a contrast-limited regime the abso- accretion and therefore might have lower lute magnitude of the host star is also important. The than at slightly later epochs (e.g., Marley et al. 2007b; same contrast around low-mass stars and brown dwarfs Molli`ere & Mordasini 2012; Marleau & Cumming 2013). corresponds to lower limiting masses compared to higher- On the other hand, the closest stars to the Sun probe mass stars. the smallest physical scales but their old ages of ∼1–10 Young stars are therefore attractive targets for two Gyr mean that high contrast imaging only reaches brown principal reasons: planets are their most luminous at dwarf masses. early ages, and the relative contrast between young gi- Young moving groups— coeval, kinematically comov- ant planets and their host stars is lower than at older ing associations young stars and brown dwarfs in the ages because stellar luminosities plateau on the main se- solar neighborhood— represent a compromise in age quence while planets and brown dwarfs continue to cool, (≈10–150 Myr) and distance (≈10–100 pc) between creating a luminosity bifurcation. For example, evolu- the nearest star forming regions and field stars (Fig- tionary models predict the H-band contrast between a ure 3; see Zuckerman & Song 2004, Torres et al. 2008, 5 MJup planet orbiting a 1 M⊙ star to be ≈25 mag at and Mamajek 2016). One distinct advantage they hold is 5 Gyr but only ≈10 mag at 10 Myr (Baraffe et al. 2003; that their members span a wide range of masses and can Baraffe et al. 2015). At old ages beyond ∼1 Gyr, 1–10 be used to age date each cluster from lithium depletion MJup planets are expected to have effective temperatures boundaries and isochrone fitting (e.g., Bell et al. 2015; between 100–500 K and cool to the late-T and Y spectral Herczeg & Hillenbrand 2015). As a result, the ages of classes with near-infrared absolute magnitudes &18 mag these groups are generally much better constrained than (Dupuy & Kraus 2013). those of isolated young stars. For these reasons young Below are overviews of the most common classes of moving group members have emerged as the primary tar- targets in direct imaging surveys highlighting the scien- gets for high-contrast imaging planet searches over the tific context, strengths and drawbacks, and observational past decade (e.g., Chauvin et al. 2010; Biller et al. 2013; results for each category. Brandt et al. 2014c) Identifying these nearby unbound associations of 2.1. Young Moving Group Members young stars is a difficult task. Each moving group’s UV W space velocities cluster closely together with small In principle, younger stars make better targets for velocity dispersions of ≈1–2 km s−1 but individual stars imaging planets. In practice, the youngest stars in the same group can be separated by tens of reside in star-forming regions beyond 100 pc. At these in space and tens of degrees across the sky. UV W kine- distances, the typical angular scales over which high- matics can be precisely determined if the , contrast imaging can probe planetary masses translate to radial velocity, and parallax to a star are known. In- ∼ wide physical separations beyond 20–50 AU (with some complete knowledge of one or more of these parameters notable exceptions with non-redundant aperture masking (usually the radial velocity and/or distance) means the and extreme AO systems). Moreover, these extremely UV W kinematics are only partially constrained, mak- ∼ young ages of 1–10 Myr correspond to timescales ing it challenging to unambiguously associate stars with when giant planets may still be assembling through core 4 T Tauri Stars Young Moving Groups Field Stars

0.1 0.1 1.0

100 0.9 5 Myr, 150 pc 30 Myr, 30 pc 5 Gyr, 10 pc

0.9

) 0.8 Detection Probability Jup

10 0.6

0.4

Planet Mass (M 0.9 0.2 1 0.1

0.0 0.1 1.0 10 100 0.1 1.0 10 100 0.1 1.0 10 100 1000 Semimajor Axis (AU) Fig. 3.— Typical sensitivity maps for high-contrast imaging observations of T Tauri stars (5 Myr at 150 pc), young moving group members (30 Myr at 30 pc), and field stars (5 Gyr at 10 pc). Young moving group members are “Golidlocks targets”— not too old, not too distant. Black curves denote 10% and 90% contour levels assuming circular orbits, Cond hot-start evolutionary models (Baraffe et al. 2003), and the median NICI contrast curve from Biller et al. (2013). Gray and orange circles are RV- and directly imaged companions, respectively (see Figure 1). L´epine & Simon 2009; Schlieder et al. 2010; Kiss et al. 500 2010; Rodriguez et al. 2011a; Schlieder et al. 2012a; YMG Members Schlieder et al. 2012b; Shkolnik et al. 2012; Malo et al. 2013; Moor et al. 2013; Rodriguez et al. 2013; 400 Pre−2010 Post−2010 Malo et al. 2014; Gagn´eet al. 2014; Riedel et al. 2014; Kraus et al. 2014b; Gagn´eet al. 2015b; Gagn´eet al. 2015c; Binks et al. 2015). Parallaxes and radial ve- 300 locities are generally not available for these otherwise

anonymous objects, but by adopting the UV W kine- 200 matics of known groups, it is possible to invert the Number problem and predict a distance, radial velocity, and membership probability. Radial velocities are obser- 100 vationally cheaper to acquire en masse compared to parallaxes, so membership confirmation has typically been accomplished with high-resolution spectroscopy. 0 The exceptions are for spectroscopic binaries, which B A F G K M require multiple epochs to measure a systemic velocity, Spectral Type and rapidly rotating stars with high projected rotational velocities (vsini), which produce large uncertainties Fig. 4.— The census of members and candidates of young moving groups. Prior to 2010 the M dwarf members were largely missing in radial velocity measurements. The abundance of owing to their faintness and lack of parallax measurements from low-mass stars in the field means that some old in- Hipparcos. Concerted efforts to find low-mass members over the terlopers will inevitably share similar space velocities past few years have filled in this population and generated a wealth with young moving groups. These must be distilled of targets for dedicated direct imaging planet searches. from bona fide membership lists on a case-by-case basis known groups. Historically, most groups themselves and (Barenfeld et al. 2013; W¨ollert et al. 2014; Janson et al. new members of these groups were found with the aid of 2014; Mccarthy & Wilhelm 2014; Bowler et al. 2015c). the Tycho Catalog and Hipparcos, which provided com- The current census of directly imaged planets and plete space velocities for bright stars together with ancil- companions near the deuterium-burning limit are listed lary information pointing to youth such as infrared ex- in Table 1. Many of these host stars are members cess from IRAS; X-ray emission from the Einstein or of young moving groups. β Pic, 51 Eri, and possi- ROSAT space observatories; strong Hα emission; and/or bly TYC 9486-927-1 are members of the β Pic mov- Li I λ6708 absorption. As a result, most of the faint low- ing group (Zuckerman et al. 2001; Feigelson et al. 2006; mass stars and brown dwarfs have been neglected. Deacon et al. 2016). HR 8799 and possibly κ And are In recent years the population of “missing” low-mass thought to be members of Columba (Zuckerman et al. stars and brown dwarfs in young moving groups has 2011). 2M1207–3932 is in the TW Hydrae Association been increasingly uncovered as a result of large all-sky (Gizis 2002). GU Psc and 2M0122–2439 are likely mem- dedicated searches (Figure 4; Shkolnik et al. 2009; bers of the AB Dor moving group (Malo et al. 2013; 5

Naud et al. 2014; Bowler et al. 2013). AB Pic, 2M0103– mm observations with ALMA have opened the possibility 5515, and 2M0219–3925are in Tuc-Hor (Song et al. 2003; of measuring the masses of these subdisks (Bowler et al. Delorme et al. 2013; Gagn´eet al. 2015b), though the 2015a) and possibly even indirect identification via gas masses of their companions are somewhat uncertain and kinematics (Perez et al. 2015). Larger disks may be able may not reside in the planetary regime. In addition, the to be spatially resolved and a dynamical mass for the space motion of VHS 1256–1257 is well-aligned with the planet may be measured from Keplerian motion. β Pic or possibly AB Dor moving groups (Gauza et al. The relationship between protoplanetary disks and 2015; Stone et al. 2016), but the lack of lithium in the young planets is also being explored in detail at these host indicates the system is older and may be a kinematic extremely young ages. In particular, transition disks— interloper. young stars whose spectral energy distributions indicate The number of moving groups in the solar neighbor- they host disks with large optically thin cavities generally hood is still under debate, but at least five are generally depleted of dust (e.g., see reviews by Williams & Cieza considered to be well-established: the TW Hydrae As- 2011, Espaillat et al. 2014, Andrews 2015, and Owen sociation, β Pic, Tuc-Hor, Carina, and AB Dor. Other 2016)— have been used as signposts to search for em- associations have been proposed and may constitute real bedded . This approach has been quite fruit- groups which formed together and are useful for age- ful, resulting in the discovery of companions within these dating purposes, but may require more scrutiny to better gaps spanning the stellar (CoKu Tau 4: Ireland & Kraus understand their size, structure, physical nature, and re- 2008; HD 142527: Biller et al. 2012, Close et al. lationship to other groups. Mamajek (2016) provide a 2014, Rodigas et al. 2014, Lacour et al. 2015), brown concise up-to-date census of their status and certitude. dwarf (HD 169142: Biller et al. 2014, Reggiani et al. Soon, micro-arcsecond and parallaxes from 2014), and planetary (LkCa 15: Kraus & Ireland 2012, will dramatically change the landscape of nearby Ireland & Kraus 2014, Sallum et al. 2015a; HD 100546: young moving groups by readily identifying overlooked Quanz et al. 2013, Currie et al. 2014d, Quanz et al. groups, missing members, and even massive planets on 2015; Currie et al. 2015, Garufi et al. 2016) mass regimes moderate orbits. using a variety of techniques. 2.2. However, environmental factors can severely compli- T Tauri Stars, Herbig Ae/Be Stars, and cate the interpretation of these detections. Extinction Transition Disks and reddening, accretion onto and from circum-planetary Despite their greater distances (≈120–150 pc), the ex- disks, extended emission from accretion streams, and treme youth (≈1–10 Myr) of T Tauri stars and their circumstellar disk sub-structures seen in scattered light massive counterparts, Herbig Ae/Be stars, in nearby can result in false alarms, degenerate interpretations, star-forming regions like , the Sco-Cen complex, and large uncertainties in the mass estimates of ac- and ρ Oph have made them attractive targets to search tual companions. T Cha offers a cautionary example; for planets with direct imaging and probe the ear- Hu´elamo et al. (2011) discovered a candidate substel- liest stages of planet formation when gas giants are lar companion a mere 62 mas from the transition-disk still assembling (Itoh et al. 2008; Ireland et al. 2011; host star with aperture masking interferometry, but ad- Mawet et al. 2012a; Janson et al. 2013a; Lafreni`ere et al. ditional observations did not show orbital motion as ex- 2014; Daemgen et al. 2015; Quanz 2015; Hinkley et al. pected for a real companion. Additional modeling in- 2015b). dicates that the signal may instead be a result of scat- One of the most surprising results from these ef- tering by grains in the outer disk or possibly even noise forts has been the unexpected discovery of planetary- in the data (Olofsson et al. 2013; Sallum et al. 2015b; mass companions on ultra-wide orbits at several hundred Cheetham et al. 2015). This highlights an additional AU from their host stars (Table 1). These wide com- complication with aperture masking: because model fits panions pose challenges to canonical theories of planet to closure phases usually consist of binary models with formation via core accretion and disk instability and two or more point sources, it can difficult to discern ac- may instead represent the tail end of brown dwarf tual planets from other false positives. In these situations companion formation, perhaps as opacity-limited frag- the astrometric detection of orbital motion is essential to ments of turbulent, collapsing cores (e.g., confirm young protoplanets embedded in disks. Low & Lynden-Bell 1976; Silk 1977; Boss 2001; Bate Other notable examples of ambiguous candidate pro- 2009). toplanets at wider separations include FW Tau b, an Many (and perhaps most) of these young planetary- accreting low-mass companion to the Taurus binary mass companions harbor accreting circum-planetary FW Tau AB orbiting at a projected separation of 330 AU disks, which provide valuable information about mass (White & Ghez 2001; Kraus et al. 2014a), and TMR- accretion rates, circum-planetary disk structure, forma- 1C, a faint, heavily extincted candidate lo- tion route, and the moon-forming capabilities of young cated ≈1400 AU from the Taurus protostellar binary planets. Accretion luminosity is partially radiated in host TMR-1AB showing large-amplitude photometric line emission, making Hα a potentially valuable tracer to variability and circumstantial evidence of a dynami- find and characterize protoplanets (Sallum et al. 2015a). cal ejection (Terebey et al. 1998; Terebey et al. 2000; For example, Zhou et al. (2014) find that up to 50% of Riaz & Mart´ın 2011; Riaz et al. 2013). Follow-up ob- the accretion luminosity in the ≈15 MJup companion servations of both companions suggest they may in- GSC 6214-210 B is emitted at Hα. Searching for these stead be low-mass stars or brown dwarfs with edge- nascent protoplanets has become a leading motivation to on disks (Petr-Gotzens et al. 2010; Bowler et al. 2014; achieve AO correction in the optical and is actively being Kraus et al. 2015; Caceres et al. 2015), underscoring a carried out with MagAO (Close et al. 2014). Deep sub- few of the difficulties that arise when interpreting candi- 6 date protoplanets at extremely young ages. Close stellar binaries (≈0.1–5′′) are generally avoided Altogether the statistics of planets orbiting the in direct imaging surveys. Multiple similarly-bright youngest T Tauri stars from direct imaging are still fairly stars can confuse wavefront sensors, which are opti- poorly constrained. Quantifying this occurrence rate is mized for single point sources, and deep coronagraphic important because it can be compared with the same val- imaging generally saturates nearby stellar companions. ues at older ages to determine the evolution of this popu- Physically, binaries carve out large dynamically-unstable lation. Planet-planet scattering, for example, implies an regions that are inhospitable to planets and there is increase in the frequency of planets on ultra-wide orbits strong evidence that they inhibit planet formation by over time. Ireland et al. (2011) found the frequency of 6– rapidly clearing or truncating protoplanetary disks (e.g., +5 Cieza et al. 2009; Duchˆene 2010; Kraus et al. 2012). 20 MJup companions from ≈200–500 AU to be ∼4−1% in Upper Scorpius. Combining these results with those Nevertheless, many planets have been found in binary from Kraus et al. (2008) and their own shallow imaging systems in both S-type orbital configurations (a planet survey, Lafreni`ere et al. (2014) find that the frequency orbiting a single star; e.g., Ngo et al. 2015) and P-type of 5–40 MJup companions between 50–250 AU is <1.8% orbits (circumbinary planets; see Winn & Fabrycky 2015 +3.0 for a recent summary). Binaries are common products and between 250–1000AU is 4.0−1.2% assuming hot-start evolutionary models. In future surveys it will be just as of , so understanding how stellar multiplic- important to report nondetections together with new dis- ity influences the initial conditions ( coveries so this frequency can be measured with greater mass and structure), secular evolution (Kozai-Lidov in- precision. teractions) and end products (dynamically relaxed plan- etary systems) of planet formation has important con- sequences for the galactic census of exoplanets (e.g., 2.3. Brown Dwarfs Wang et al. 2014; Kraus et al. 2016). Young brown dwarfs (≈13–75 MJup) have low Several planetary-mass companions have been im- circum-substellar disk masses (Mohanty et al. 2013; aged around binary stars on wide circumbinary orbits: Andrews et al. 2013) and are not expected to host giant ROXs 42B b (Kraus et al. 2014a; Currie et al. 2014b), planets as frequently as stars. Nevertheless, their low lu- Ross 458 c (Goldman et al. 2010; Scholz 2010), SR 12 C minosities make them especially advantageous for high- (Kuzuhara et al. 2011), HD 106906 b (Bailey et al. 2014; contrast imaging because lower masses can be probed Lagrange et al. 2016), and VHS 1256–1257 (Gauza et al. with contrast-limited observations. 2015; Stone et al. 2016). 2M0103–5515 b (Delorme et al. Several deep imaging surveys with ground-based 2013) and FW Tau b (Kraus et al. 2014a) orbit close, AO or HST have included brown dwarfs in their near-equal mass stellar binaries, but the masses of the samples (Kraus et al. 2005; Ahmic et al. 2007; wide tertiaries are highly uncertain (Bowler et al. 2014). Stumpf et al. 2010; Biller et al. 2011; Todorov et al. On the other hand, few imaged planets orbiting sin- 2014; Garcia et al. 2015). A handful of companions gle stars also have wide stellar companions. 51 Eri Ab in the 5–15 MJup range have been discovered with is orbited by the pair of M dwarf binaries GJ 3305 AB direct imaging: 2M1207–3932 b (Chauvin et al. 2004; (Feigelson et al. 2006; Kasper et al. 2007; Montet et al. Chauvin et al. 2005a), 2M0441+2301 b (Todorov et al. 2015) at ∼2000 AU. Fomalhaut has two extremely dis- 2010), and possibly both FU Tau B (Luhman et al. tant stellar companions at ≈57 kAU and ≈158 kAU 2009b) and VHS 1256–1257 (Gauza et al. 2015) (Mamajek et al. 2013). 2M0441+2301 Bb orbits a low- depending on their ages. A few other low-mass com- mass brown dwarf and is part of a hierarchical quadruple panions (and in some cases the primaries themselves) system with a distant star-brown dwarf pair at a pro- to late-T and early-Y field brown dwarfs may also jected separation of 1800 AU (Todorov et al. 2010). reside in the planetary regime depending on the There has been little work comparing the occurrence system ages: CFBDSIR J1458+1013 B (Liu et al. rate of imaged planets in binaries and single stars. How- 2011), WISE J1217+1626 B (Liu et al. 2012), and ever, several surveys and post-processing techniques are WISE J0146+4234 B (Dupuy et al. 2015a). now expressly focusing on binary systems and should The low mass ratios of these systems (q≈0.2–0.5) bear clarify the statistical properties of planets in these dy- a closer resemblance to binary stars than canonical plan- namically complicated arrangements (Thalmann et al. etary systems (q.0.001), and the formation route of 2014; Rodigas et al. 2015; Thomas et al. 2015). these very low-mass binaries is probably quite different 2.5. than around stars (Lodato et al. 2005). High-order mul- Debris Disks: Signposts of Planet Formation? tiple systems with low total masses like 2M0441+2301 Debris disks are extrasolar analogs of the asteroid AabBab and VHS 1256–1257 ABb suggest that cloud and Kuiper belts in the . They are the fragmentation can form objects in the planetary-mass continually-replenished outcomes of cascading planetesi- domain (Chauvin et al. 2005a; Todorov et al. 2010; mal collisions that result in large quantities of transient Bowler & Hillenbrand 2015; Stone et al. 2016). Con- dust heated by the host star. Observationally, debris tinued astrometric monitoring of ultracool binaries will disks are identified from unresolved infrared or sub-mm eventually yield orbital elements and dynamical masses excesses over stellar photospheric emission. Deep ob- for these intriguing systems to test formation mecha- servations spanning the optical, IR, and sub-mm can nisms (Dupuy & Liu 2011) and giant planet evolutionary spatially resolved the largest and most luminous disks models. in scattered light and thermal emission to investigate disk morphology and grain properties. Topical reviews 2.4. Binary Stars by Zuckerman (2001), Moro-Martin et al. (2008), Wyatt (2008), Krivov (2010), and Matthews et al. (2014a) high- 7 light recent theoretical and observational progress on the Absil et al. 2011; Janson et al. 2012; Nielsen et al. 2013; formation, modeling, and evolution of debris disks. Kenworthy et al. 2013; Currie et al. 2012b; Currie et al. Debris disks are intimately linked to planets, which 2013; Janson et al. 2015). can stir , sculpt disk features, produce off- Vega’s nearly face-on is similar to Foma- sets between disks and their host stars, and carve gaps lhaut’s in terms of its two-component structure com- to form belts with spectral energy distributions showing prised of warm and cold dust belts and wide gaps multiple temperature components. The presence of de- with orbital ratios &10, possibly indicating the pres- bris disks, and especially those with features indicative ence of multiple low-mass planets (e.g., Wilner et al. of a massive perturber, may therefore act as signposts 2002; Su et al. 2005; Su et al. 2013). Deep imaging of for planets. The four directly imaged planetary systems Vega over the past 15 years has thus far failed to iden- β Pic, HR 8799, 51 Eri, and HD 95086 all possess debris tify planets with detection limits down to a few disks, the latter three having multiple belts interior and masses (Metchev et al. 2003; Macintosh et al. 2003; exterior to the imaged planet(s). This remarkably con- Itoh et al. 2006; Marois et al. 2006; Hinz et al. 2006; sistent configuration is analogous to the Solar System’s Hinkley et al. 2007; Heinze et al. 2008; Janson et al. architecture in which gas giants are flanked by (very low- 2011a; Mennesson et al. 2011; Janson et al. 2015). level) zodiacal emission. β Pic hosts an extraordinarily large, nearly edge-on Anecdotal signs point to a possible correlation be- disk spanning almost 2000 AU in radius (Smith & Terrile tween disks and imaged planets but this relationship has 1984; Larwood & Kalas 2001). Its proximity, brightness, not yet been statistically validated. There have been and spatial extent make it one of the best-studied debris hints of a correlation between debris disks and low-mass disks, showing signs of multiple belts (e.g., Wahhaj et al. planets detected via radial velocities (Wyatt et al. 2012; 2003), asymmetries (e.g., Kalas & Jewitt 1995), molec- Marshall et al. 2014), but these were not confirmed in ular gas clumps (Dent et al. 2014), and an inner warp a recent analysis by Moro-Martin et al. (2015). Indeed, (Heap et al. 2000) predicted to be caused by a close- many stars hosting multi-component debris disks have in inclined planet (Mouillet et al. 1997). Lagrange et al. now been targeted with high-contrast imaging and do not (2009a) uncovered a possible massive planet at ∼9 AU appear to harbor massive planets (Rameau et al. 2013a; and, despite immediate follow-up (Fitzgerald et al. 2009; Wahhaj et al. 2013b; Janson et al. 2013c; Meshkat et al. Lagrange et al. 2009b), it was not until it reemerged on 2015a). Given the high incidence of debris disks around the other side of the star that β Pic b was unambiguously main-sequence stars (&16–20%: Trilling et al. 2008; confirmed (Lagrange et al. 2010). Eiroa et al. 2013), with even higher rates at younger ages ǫ Eridani is another particularly fascinating exam- (Rieke et al. 2005; Meyer et al. 2008), any correlation of ple of a nearby, relatively young K2 star hosting a imaged giant planets and debris disks will be difficult to bright debris disk with spatially resolved ring struc- discern because the overall occurrence rate of massive ture and a warm inner component (Greaves et al. 1998; planets on wide orbits is extremely low (.1%; see Sec- Greaves et al. 2005; Backman et al. 2009). At 3.2 pc this tion 4.5). Perhaps more intriguing would be a subset star harbors the closest debris disk to the Sun, has a of this sample with additional contextual clues, for ex- Jovian-mass planet detected by radial velocity and as- ample the probability of an imaged planet given a two- trometric variations (Hatzes et al. 2000; Benedict et al. component debris disk compared to a diskless control 2006), and possesses a long-term RV trend pointing to sample. an additional long-period giant planet. Because of its The Fabulous Four— Vega, β Pic, Fomalhaut, and favorable age and proximity, ǫ Eridani has been exhaus- ǫ Eridani— host the brightest debris disks discovered tively imaged with adaptive optics on the largest ground- by IRAS (Aumann et al. 1984; Aumann 1985) and have based telescopes in an effort to recover the known planets probably been targeted more than any other stars with and search for others (Luhman & Jayawardhana 2002; high-contrast imaging over the past 15 years, except per- Macintosh et al. 2003; Itoh et al. 2006; Marengo et al. haps for HR 8799. Despite having similarly large and lu- 2006; Janson et al. 2007; Lafreni`ere et al. 2007b; minous disks, their planetary systems are quite different Biller et al. 2007; Janson et al. 2008; Heinze et al. 2008; and demonstrate a wide diversity of evolutionary out- Marengo et al. 2009; Heinze et al. 2010b; Wahhaj et al. comes. 2013b; Janson et al. 2015). Together with long-baseline Fomalhaut’s disk possesses a sharply truncated, off- radial velocity monitoring, these deep observations have set, and eccentric ring about 140 AU in radius sug- ruled out planets >3 MJup anywhere in this system. gesting sculpting from a planet (Dent et al. 2000; 2.6. Boley et al. 2012; Kalas et al. 2005). A comoving Field Stars and Radial Velocity Trends optical source (“Fomalhaut b”) was discovered inte- At the old ages of field stars (∼1–10 Gyr), giant plan- rior to the ring by Kalas et al. (2008a) and appears ets have cooled to late spectral types and low luminosi- to be orbiting on a highly inclined and eccentric or- ties where high-contrast imaging does not regularly reach bit not coincident with the ring structure (Kalas et al. the planetary-mass regime. Nevertheless, several surveys 2013). The nature of this intriguing companion re- have focused on this population because their proximity mains puzzling; it may be a low-mass planet with a means very close separations can be probed and their old large circum-planetary disk, a swarm of colliding irregu- ages provide information about potential dynamical evo- lar satellites, or perhaps a recent collision of protoplan- lution of substellar companions and giant planets over ets (e.g., Kalas et al. 2008b; Kennedy & Wyatt 2011; time (McCarthy & Zuckerman 2004; Carson et al. 2005; Kenyon et al. 2014). Massive planets have been ruled out Carson et al. 2006; Heinze et al. 2010a; Heinze et al. from deep imaging down to about 20 AU (Kalas et al. 2010b; Tanner et al. 2010; Leconte et al. 2010). 2008a; Kenworthy et al. 2009; Marengo et al. 2009; Of particular interest are stars showing low-amplitude, 8 long-baseline radial velocity changes (Doppler “trends”). 1.00 These accelerations are regularly revealed in planet

searches and point to the existence of unseen stars, )

brown dwarfs, or giant planets on wide orbits. High- Sun contrast imaging is a useful tool to diagnose the na- ture of these companions and, in the case of non- −1 yr detections, rule out massive objects at wide projected −1 0.10 separations (Kasper et al. 2007; Geißler et al. 2007; 30 m sHR 7672 B Substellar Limit Luhman & Jayawardhana 2002; Chauvin et al. 2006; HIP 71898 B HD 19467 B Janson et al. 2009; Jenkins et al. 2010; Kenworthy et al. HD 4747 B −1 Larger Easier to 2009; Rodigas et al. 2011). yr Acceleration Image −1

Companion Mass (M Low−Mass Star When a companion is detected, its minimum mass can 10 m s −1 −1

−1 yr −1 yr Harder to Smaller Brown Dwarf be inferred from the host star’s acceleration (v ˙), the dis- Image Acceleration Planet Host tance to the system (d), and the angular separation of 0.01 3 m s 1 m s the companion (ρ) following Torres (1999) and Liu et al. 10 100 (2002): Separation (AU)

2 Fig. 5.— Imaged companions inducing shallow radial veloc- −5 d ρ v˙ ity trends on their host stars. Blue, orange, and red circles are Mcomp > 1.388×10 ′′ − − M⊙. (2) white dwarf companions, low-mass stellar companions, and sub- pc  m s 1 yr 1 stellar companions, respectively. Concentric circles indicate the host star has a . Only three brown dwarf com- The coefficient is 0.0145 when expressed in MJup. This panions inducing shallow trends have been found: HR 7672 B equation assumes an instantaneous radial velocity slope, (Liu et al. 2002), HD 19467 B (Crepp et al. 2014), and HD 4747 B (Crepp et al. 2016). Gray dashed lines show constant accelera- but longer baseline coverage or a change in the accelera- tions assuming circular orbits; the maximum host star acceleration tion (“jerk”) can provide better constraints on a com- is proportional to the companion mass and inversely proportional panion’s mass and period (Rodigas et al. 2016). If a to the square of the projected physical separation, so a 1 MJup planet at 10 AU will produce the same maximum acceleration as a significant fraction of the orbit is measured with both −1 −1 100 MJup low-mass star at 100 AU (namely 0.7 m s yr ). See astrometry and radial velocities, simultaneous model- Table 2 for details on these systems. ing of both data sets can yield a robust dynamical mass measurement. Perhaps the best example of this is other solution is to image planets in reflected light at from Crepp et al. (2012a), who measured the mass and optical wavelengths, which requires a space-based tele- three-dimensional orbit of the brown dwarf companion scope and like WFIRST (Traub et al. 2014; HR 7672 B, initially discovered by Liu et al. (2002) based Spergel et al. 2015; Brown 2015; Greco & Burrows 2015; on an acceleration from the host star. Robinson et al. 2016). Similarly, astrometric accelera- Many stellar and white dwarf companions have been tions can be used to identify and measure the masses discovered in this fashion but only a few substellar com- of substellar companions when combined with high- panions have been found (Table 2). Figure 5 shows the contrast imaging. This will be particularly relevant in population of known companions inducing shallow RV the near-future with Gaia as thousands of planets are ex- trends on their host stars and which have also been re- pected to be found from the orbital reflex motion of their covered with high resolution (and often high-contrast) host stars (Sozzetti et al. 2013; Perryman et al. 2014). imaging. Most of these are M dwarfs with masses be- Young stars in the field not necessarily associated tween ∼0.1–0.5 M⊙ at separations of ∼10–100 AU. This with coherent moving groups have also been popu- is primarily due to the two competing methods at play: lar targets for high-contrast imaging planet searches. at these old ages, direct imaging is insensitive to low The advantage of this population is that they are nu- masses and close separations, while small accelerations merous and often reside at closer distances than ac- induced from wide-separation and low-mass companions tual members of young moving groups, but their ages are difficult to measure even for long-baseline, precision and are generally highly uncertain so sub- radial velocity planet searches. The TRENDS program stellar companions uncovered with deep imaging can (e.g., Crepp et al. 2012a; Crepp et al. 2014) is the largest have a wide range of possible masses (e.g., Mawet et al. survey to combine these two methods and demonstrates 2015). GJ 504 and κ And are recent examples of the importance of both detections and non-detections to young field stars with faint companions that were initially infer the population of planets on moderate orbits out to thought to have planetary masses (Kuzuhara et al. 2013; ∼20 AU (Montet et al. 2014). Carson et al. 2013) but which follow-up studies showed Dynamical masses of planets may eventually be mea- are probably older (Hinkley et al. 2013; Bonnefoy et al. sured by combing radial velocity monitoring of the host 2014a; Fuhrmann & Chini 2015; Jones et al. 2016), im- star and direct imaging, effectively treating the system plying the companions are likely more massive and re- like a spatially resolved single-lined spectroscopic bi- side in the brown dwarf regime. Sirius is another ex- nary. Stellar jitter is a limiting factor at very young ample of a young massive field star extensively tar- ages and at older ages the low luminosities of planets geted with high-contrast imaging (Kuchner & Brown generally preclude imaging. The intermediate ages of 2000; Bonnet-Bidaud & Pantin 2008; Skemer & Close moving group members may provide an adequate solu- 2011; Thalmann et al. 2011; Vigan et al. 2015). This tion, and at least one ambitious survey by Lagrange et al. system is particularly noteworthy for possible periodic (2013) is currently underway to search for planets and astrometric perturbations to the orbit of its white dwarf long-term radial velocity trends for this population. An- companion Sirius B that may be caused by an still-hidden 9 giant planet or brown dwarf (Benest & Duvent 1995). much lower luminosities and initial entropies com- pared to the hot-start scenario, taking between 3. THE MASSES OF IMAGED PLANETS ∼108 and ∼109 years to converge with hot-start The masses of directly imaged planets are generally cooling models depending on the planet mass. The highly uncertain, heavily model-dependent, and diffi- observational implications of this are severe: plan- cult to independently measure. Yet mass is fundamen- ets formed from core accretion may be orders of tally important to test models of giant planet formation magnitude less luminous than those produced from and empirically calibrate substellar evolutionary models. cloud fragmentation or disk instability. While this This Section describes how observables like bolometric may offer a diagnostic for the formation route if luminosity, color, and coupled with the mass of a planet is independently measured, evolutionary models and semi-empirical quantities like it also introduces considerable uncertainty in the age are used to infer the masses of planets. Although no more typical case when only an age and luminos- imaged planet has yet had its mass directly measured, ity are known. For example, 51 Eri b may be as there are several promising routes to achieve this which low as 2 MJup or as high as 12 MJup depending will eventually enable rigorous tests of giant planet cool- on which cooling model (hot or cold) is assumed ing models. (Macintosh et al. 2015). This picture is made even more complicated by 3.1. Inferring Masses large uncertainties in the details of cold-start mod- Like white dwarfs and brown dwarfs, giant planets els. The treatment of accretion shocks, circumplan- cool over time so evolutionary models along with two etary disks, core mass, and even deuterium burning physical parameters— luminosity, age, effective temper- for the most massive planets can dramatically influ- ature, or radius— are needed to infer a planet’s mass. ence the initial entropy and luminosity evolution of Among these, luminosity and age are usually better con- planets (Mordasini et al. 2012; Bodenheimer et al. strained and less reliant on atmospheric models than ef- 2013; Mordasini 2013; Owen & Menou 2016). fective temperature and radius, which can substantially This motivated a class of warm-start models vary with assumptions about cloud properties, chemi- with intermediate initial entropies that prob- cal composition, and sources of opacity. Below are sum- ably better reflect dissipative accretion shocks maries of the major assumptions (in roughly descending that occur in nature (Spiegel & Burrows 2012; order) involved in the inference of planet masses using Marleau & Cumming 2013). Unfortunately, the atmospheric and evolutionary models along with notable relevant details of giant planet assembly are poorly advantages, drawbacks, and limitations of various tech- constrained by observations. There is also likely niques. to be intrinsic scatter in the initial conditions for a given planet which may result in large degenera- • Initial conditions and formation pathway. cies in the planet mass, core mass, and accretion history for young gas giants with the same age and The most important assumption is the amount of luminosity. It is quite possible, for instance, that initial energy and entropy a planet begins with fol- the HR 8799 c, d, and e planets which all share lowing its formation. This defines its evolutionary the same age and nearly the same luminosity could pathway, which is embodied in three broad classes have very different masses. informed by formation mechanisms. Hot-start models begin with arbitrarily large • Stellar age. After bolometric luminosity, which radii and oversimplified, idealized initial condi- is generally uncomplicated to estimate for imaged tions that generally ignore the effects of accre- planets, the age of the host star is the most sen- tion and mass assembly. As such, they rep- sitive parameter on which the mass of an im- resent the most luminous outcome and corre- aged companion depends. It is also one of the spond to the most optimistically (albeit unrealis- most difficult quantities to accurately determine tically) low mass estimates. Ironically, hot-start and usually relies on stellar evolutionary models grids are nearly unanimously adopted for estimat- or empirical calibrations. Recent reviews on this ing the masses of young brown dwarfs and giant topic include Soderblom (2010), Jeffries (2014), planets even though the early evolution in these and Soderblom et al. (2014). Figure 6 shows the models is the least reliable. The most widely current census of imaged companions near and be- used hot-start models for imaged planets are the low the deuterium-burning limit with both age and Cond and Dusty grids from Baraffe et al. (2003) luminosity measurements (from Table 1). Apart and Chabrier (2001), Burrows et al. (1997), and from uncertainties in the formation history of these Saumon & Marley (2008). objects, age uncertainties dominate the error bud- get for inferring masses. Cold-start models were made prominent by Marley et al. (2007b) and Fortney et al. (2008) in Clusters of coeval stars spanning a wide range of the context of direct imaging as an attempt to em- masses provide some of the best age constraints ulate a more realistic formation scenario for giant but are still dominated by systematic errors. Sev- planets through core accretion. In this model, ac- eral star-forming regions and young moving groups cretion shocks radiate the gravitational potential in particular have been systematically adjusted to energy of infalling gas as a giant planet grows. older ages over the past few years, which has prop- After formation, these planets begin cooling with agated to the ages and masses of planets in those 10

−2

SR12 C −3 ROXs42B b βPic b HD 106906 b ) −4 Sun

L HR 8799 cde

/ 2M1207−39 b

L −5 HD 95086 b GU Psc b log( HR 8799 b Ross 458 c 51 Eri b −6 GJ 758 B GJ 504 b CFBDS1458+10 B WISE1217+16 B −7 WISE0146+42 B

6 7 8 9 10 log(Age) (yr) Fig. 6.— The current census of companions in the brown dwarf (green) and planetary (blue) mass regimes that have both age and bolometric luminosity measurements from the compilation in Table 1. Many companions lie near the deuterium-burning limit while only a handful of objects are unambiguously in the planetary-mass regime. Hot-start evolutionary models are from Burrows et al. (1997); orange, green, and blue tracks denote masses >80 MJup, 14–80 MJup, and <14 MJup. associations (Pecaut et al. 2012; Binks & Jeffries companion 2M1207–3932 b is assumed to be coeval 2014; Kraus et al. 2014b; Bell et al. 2015). The with the TW Hyrdae Association (τ = 10 ± 3 Myr) implied hot-start mass for β Pic b, for example, in- then its hot-start mass is ≈5 MJup. On the other creases by several Jupiter masses (corresponding to hand, if its formation was delayed by 8 Myr (τ = several tens of percent) assuming the planet’s age 2 Myr) then its mass is only ≈2.5 MJup. is ≈23 Myr instead of ≈12 Myr (Mamajek & Bell 2014; although see the next bullet point). • Atmospheric models. Atmospheric models can influence the inferred masses of imaged exoplan- For young field stars, distant stellar companions ets in several ways. They act as surface bound- can help age-date the entire system. For ex- ary conditions for evolutionary models and regu- ample, the age of Fomalhaut was recently re- ∼ ∼ late radiative cooling through molecular and con- vised to 400 Myr from 200 Myr in part due tinuum opacity sources. This in turn impacts the to constraints from its wide M dwarf compan- luminosity evolution of giant planets, albeit min- ions (Mamajek 2012; Mamajek et al. 2013). Ul- imally because of the weak dependence on mean timately, if the age of a host star is unknown, the opacity (L(t) ∝ κ0.35; Burrows & Liebert 1993; significance and interpretation of a faint companion Burrows et al. 2001). Even the unrealistic cases is limited if basic physical properties like its mass of permanently dusty and perpetually condensate- are poorly constrained. free do not dramatically affect the lu- • of planet formation. Planets take time minosity evolution of cooling models or mass de- to form so they are not exactly coeval with their terminations using age and bolometric luminosity host stars. Their ages may span the stellar age (Baraffe et al. 2002; Saumon & Marley 2008), al- to the stellar age minus ∼10 Myr depending on though more realistic (“hybrid”) models account- the timescale for giant planets to assemble. Plan- ing for the evolution and dissipation of clouds ets formed via cloud fragmentation or disk insta- at the L/T transition can influence the shape bility might be nearly coeval with their host star, of cooling curves in slight but significant ways but those formed by core accretion are expected to (Saumon & Marley 2008; Dupuy et al. 2015b). build mass over several Myr. While this difference On the other hand, mass determinations in color- is negligible at intermediate and old ages beyond a magnitude space are highly sensitive to atmo- few tens of Myrs, it can have a large impact on the spheric models and can result in changes of several inferred masses of the youngest planets (.20 Myr). tens of percent depending on the specific treatment For example, if the age of the young planetary-mass of atmospheric condensates. Dust reddens spec- 11

−10 companions near and below the deuterium- burning limit on the near-infrared color-color diagram. At young ages, warm giant planets are Lum Class I significantly redder than the field population of −5 II brown dwarfs, and several of the most extreme examples have anomalously low absolute mag- III nitudes. For old brown dwarfs, this evolution from dusty, CO-bearing L dwarfs to cloud-free, 0 methane-dominated T dwarfs takes place over a IV narrow temperature range (∼1200–1400 K) but occurs at a lower (albeit still poorly constrained) V temperature for young gas giants. The lack of 5 methane is likely caused by disequilibrium carbon M Dwarfs chemistry at low surface gravities as a result

(mag) of vigorous vertical mixing (e.g., Barman et al. H 2011a; Zahnle & Marley 2014; Ingraham et al. M 10 2014; Skemer et al. 2014a), while the preservation L of photospheric condensates can be explained by T a dependency of cloud base pressure and particle 15 size on surface (Marley et al. 2012). Un- fortunately, the dearth of known planets between ∼L5–T5 is the main limitation to understanding this transition in detail (Figure 8). 20 Y In principle, the mass of a planet can also be in- ferred by fitting synthetic spectra to the planet’s observed spectrum or multi-band photometry. The mass can then be obtained from best-fitting model 25 as follows: −2 −1 0 1 2 3 J−K (mag) 2 log(g)−4.5 dex R Fig. 7.— The modern color-magnitude diagram spans nearly 35 Mp (MJup)=12.76 × 10 . (3) magnitudes in the near-infrared and 5 magnitudes in J–K color. RJup  The directly imaged planets (bold circles) extend the L dwarf se- quence to redder colors and fainter absolute magnitudes owing to Here log(g) is the (in cm s−2) a delayed transition from cloudy atmospheres to condensate-free T dwarfs at low surface gravities. The details of this transition and R is the planet’s radius. The radius can for giant planets remains elusive. OBAFGK stars (gray) are from either be taken from evolutionary models or al- the extended Hipparcos compilation XHIP (Anderson & Francis ternatively from the multiplicative factor that 2012); M dwarfs (orange) are from Winters et al. (2015); late- scales the emergent model spectrum to the ob- M dwarfs (orange), L dwarfs (green), and T dwarfs (light blue) are from Dupuy & Liu (2012); and Y dwarfs (blue) are com- served flux-calibrated spectrum (or photometry) of piled largely from Dupuy et al. (2014), Tinney et al. (2014), and the planet. This scale factor corresponds to the Beichman et al. (2014) by T. Dupuy (2016, private communica- planet’s radius over its distance, squared (R2/d2; tion). Directly imaged planets or planet candidates (bold circles) see Cushing et al. 2008 for details). represent all companions from Table 1 with near-infrared photom- etry and parallactic distances. Clearly the inferred mass is very sensitive to both tra and can modify the near-infrared colors and the surface gravity and the radius. In practice, absolute magnitudes of ultracool objects by sev- gravity is usually poorly constrained for model fits eral magnitudes. This introduces another source to brown dwarf and giant planet spectra because its of uncertainty if the spectral shape is poorly con- influence on the emergent spectrum is more sub- strained, though the difference between dusty and tle (e.g., Cushing et al. 2008; Bowler et al. 2011; cloud-free models is smaller at longer wavelengths Barman et al. 2011a; Macintosh et al. 2015). In addition, the scale factor strongly depends on the and higher temperatures. −4 model effective temperature (∝ Teff ), which is typ- One of the most important and unexpected ically not known to better than ∼100 K. Alto- empirical results to emerge from direct imag- gether, the current level of systematic imperfec- ing has been the realization that young brown tions present in atmospheric models and observed dwarfs and massive planets retain photospheric spectra of exoplanets (e.g., Greco & Brandt 2016) clouds even at low effective temperatures where mean that masses cannot yet be reliably measured older, high-gravity brown dwarfs have already from fitting grids of synthetic spectra. transitioned to T dwarfs (Metchev & Hillenbrand 2006; Chauvin et al. 2004; Marois et al. 2008; • Deuterium burning history. As brown dwarfs Patience et al. 2010; Bowler et al. 2010a; with masses between about 13 MJup and 75 MJup Faherty et al. 2012; Bowler et al. 2013; Liu et al. contract, their core temperatures become hot 2013; Filippazzo et al. 2015). This is demonstrated enough to burn deuterium, though not at suffi- in Figure 7, which shows the location of imaged cient rates to balance surface radiative losses (e.g., 12

10.000

1.000 Ross 458 C HN Peg B

HD 203030 B 0.100 HR 8799 bcde GU Psc b

Age (Gyr) 51 Eri b 2M0219−39 b βPic b 2M1207−39 b 0.010 HD 95086 b

ROXs42B b 2M0441+23 Bb 0.001 L0 L5 T0 T5 Y0 Spectral Type Fig. 8.— Ultracool substellar companions with well-constrained ages and spectroscopically-derived classifications. Red circles are low- mass stars and brown dwarfs (>13 MJup) while blue circles show companions near and below the deuterium-burning limit. Companions are primarily from Deacon et al. (2014) together with additional discoveries from the literature. Kumar 1963; Burrows & Liebert 1993).3 The onset practice when deriving masses for imaged planets and timescale of deuterium burning varies primar- is to assume solar abundances, which is largely dic- ily with mass but also with , helium frac- tated by the availability of published atmospheric tion, and initial entropy (e.g., Spiegel et al. 2011); and evolutionary models. Many of these assump- lower-mass brown dwarfs take longer to initiate tions can be removed with atmospheric retrieval deuterium burning than objects near the hydrogen- methods by directly fitting for atomic and molec- burning minimum mass. This additional transient ular abundances (Lee et al. 2013; Line et al. 2014; energy source delays the otherwise invariable cool- Todorov et al. 2015). ing and causes luminosity tracks to overlap. Thus, objects with the same luminosity and age can dif- • Additional sources of uncertainty. A num- fer in mass depending on their deuterium-burning ber of other factors and implicit assumptions history. Many substellar companions fall in this can also introduce random and systematic un- ambiguous region, complicating mass determina- certainties in mass derivations. Different meth- tions by up to a factor of ∼2 (Figure 6 and Ta- ods of PSF subtraction can bias photometry if ble 1). With a large sample of objects in this region, planet self-subtraction or speckle over-subtraction spectroscopy may ultimately be able to distinguish is not properly corrected (e.g., Marois et al. 2006; higher- and lower-mass scenarios through relative Lafreni`ere et al. 2007a; Soummer et al. 2012). surface gravity measurements (Bowler et al. 2013). Photometric variability from rapidly changing or rotationally-modulated surface features can • Planet composition. The gas and ice giants in introduce uncertainties in relative photometry the Solar System are enriched in heavy elements (e.g., Radigan et al. 2014; Metchev et al. 2015; compared to solar values. The specific mecha- Zhou et al. 2016; Biller et al. 2015a). The host nism for this enhancement is still under debate star can also be variable if it has unusually large but exoplanets formed via core accretion are ex- coverage or if it is very young and hap- pected to show similar compositional and abun- pens to have an edge-on disk (e.g., TWA 30A; dance ratio differences compared to their host stars, Looper et al. 2010). whereas planets formed through cloud fragmenta- Multiplicity can also bias luminosity measure- tion or disk instability are probably quite similar ments. Roughly 20% of brown dwarfs are close bi- to the stars they orbit. The bulk composition of naries with separation distributions peaking near planets modifies their atmospheric opacities and 4.5 AU and mass ratios approaching unity (e.g., influences both their emergent spectra and lumi- Burgasser et al. 2007; Kraus & Hillenbrand 2012; nosity evolution (Fortney et al. 2008). A common Duchˆene & Kraus 2013). If some planetary-mass 3 Solar-metallicity brown dwarfs with masses above ≈63 MJup companions form in the same manner as brown can also burn lithium. This limit changes slightly for non-solar dwarfs, and if the same trends in multiplicity con- values (Burrows et al. 2001). tinue into the planetary regime, then a small frac- 13

tion of planetary-mass companions are probably it has an early spectral type (with few absorp- close, unresolved, equal-mass binaries. These sys- tion lines) or high levels of stellar activity (RV tems will appear twice as luminous. jitter) then RV monitoring of the planet can also If atmospheric chemistry or cloud structure varies yield its mass. This can be achieved by combining latitudinally then orientation and viewing angle adaptive optics imaging and high-resolution near- could be important. For the youngest proto- infrared spectroscopy to spatially separate the star planets embedded in their host stars’ circumstel- and planet, as has been demonstrated with β Pic b lar disks, accretion streams might dominate over (Snellen et al. 2014). Soon Gaia will produce pre- thermal photospheric emission, complicating lu- cise astrometric measurements of the host stars of minosity measurements and mass estimates (e.g., imaged planets. Together with orbit monitoring LkCa15 b and HD 100546 b; Kraus & Ireland 2012; though high-contrast imaging, this may offer an- Quanz et al. 2013). Approaches to applying bolo- other way to directly constrain the masses of im- metric corrections, measuring partly opaque coro- aged planets. nagraphs and neutral density filters, finely interpo- Close substellar binaries offer another approach. lating atmospheric and evolutionary model grids, Their orbital periods are typically faster and, in or converting models between filter systems (for ex- rare cases when such binaries themselves orbit ample, CH4S to K) may vary. Finally, additional a star, the age of the tertiary components can energy sources like radioactivity or stellar insola- be adopted from the host star. Several brown tion are assumed to be negligible but could impact dwarf-brown dwarf masses have been measured in the luminosity evolution of some exoplanets. this fashion: HD 130948 BC (Dupuy et al. 2009), Gl 417 BC (Dupuy et al. 2014), and preliminary 3.2. Measuring Masses masses for ǫ Indi Bab (Cardoso et al. 2009). Iso- No imaged planet has yet had its mass measured. The lated substellar pairs are also useful for dynami- most robust, model-independent way to do so is through cal mass measurements but their ages are gener- dynamical interactions with other objects. Because plan- ally poorly constrained unless they are members of ets follow mass-luminosity-age relationships, knowledge young clusters or moving groups. No binaries with of all three parameters are needed to test cooling models. both components unambiguously residing in the Once a mass is measured, its age (from the host star) and planetary-mass regime are known, but there is at bolometric luminosity (from its distance and spectral en- least one candidate (WISE J014656.66+423410.0; ergy distribution) enable precision model tests, although Dupuy et al. 2015a). an assumption about energy losses from accretion via • hot-, warm-, or cold-start must be made. Nevertheless, Keplerian disk rotation. Dynamical masses for if all hot-start models overpredict the luminosities of gi- young protoplanets may eventually be possible us- ant planets, that would suggest that accretion history is ing ALMA through Keplerian rotation of circum- indeed an important factor in both planet formation and planetary disks. This requires resolving faint gas realistic cooling models. Below is a summary of methods emission lines (e.g., CO J=3–2 or CO J=2–1) to measure substellar masses. from the planet both spatially and spectrally, some- thing that has yet to be achieved for known young • Dynamical masses. Most close-in (<100 AU) planets harboring subdisks (e.g., Isella et al. 2014; planets have shown significant orbital motion since Bowler et al. 2015a). Although challenging, this their discoveries (Table 1). This relative motion type of measurement can act as a detailed probe of provides a measure of the total mass of the system the initial conditions of giant planet formation and (Mstar+Mplanet). If stationary background stars evolution. can simultaneously be observed with the planet- • star pair then absolute astrometry is possible. This Stability analysis. Numerical modeling of then gives individual masses for each component planets and their interactions with debris disks, protoplanetary disks, or additional planets offers (Mstar and Mplanet separately). Unfortunately the long orbital periods and lack of nearby background another way to constrain the mass of an imaged stars for the present census of imaged planets planet. If their masses are too low, planets will means this method is currently impractical to mea- not be able to gravitationally shape dust and sure masses. planetesimals in a manner consistent with obser- vations. Modeling of the disks and companions Relative astrometry can also be combined with ra- orbiting Fomalhaut and β Pic illustrate this dial velocities to measure a planet’s mass. Assum- approach; independent constraints on the orbit ing the visual orbit and total mass are well con- and masses of these companions can be made by strained from imaging, the mass of the companion combining spatially-resolved disk structures (a can be measured by monitoring the line of sight truncated, offset dust ring encircling Fomalhaut reflex motion of the host star (e.g., Crepp et al. and a warped inner disk surrounding β Pic b) 2012a). This treats the system as a single-lined and observed orbital motion (e.g., Chiang et al. spectroscopic binary, giving the mass function 2009; Dawson et al. 2011; Kalas et al. 2013; 3 3 2 mp sin i/Mtot, where Mtot is the measured to- Beust et al. 2014; Millar-Blanchaer et al. 2015). tal mass, i is the measured inclination, and mp Likewise, if a planet’s mass is too high then it is the mass of the planet. If precise radial ve- carves a larger disk gap or may destabilize other locities are not possible for the host star because planets in the system through mutual interactions. 14

For example, detailed N-body simulations of Early high-contrast imaging surveys in search HR 8799’s planets have shown that they must of closely-separated brown dwarf companions and have masses .10–20 MJup — consistent with giant giant planets were conducted with speckle interfer- planet evolutionary models — or they would have ometry (Henry & McCarthy 1990), image stabiliz- become dynamically unstable by the age of the ers (Nakajima et al. 1994), HST (Sartoretti et al. host star (e.g., Go´zdziewski & Migaszewski 1998; Schroeder et al. 2000; Brandner et al. 2000; 2009; Fabrycky&Murray-Clay 2010; Lowrance et al. 2005; Luhman et al. 2005), speckle cam- Currie et al. 2011b; Sudol & Haghighipour 2012; eras (Neuh¨auser et al. 2003), or newly-commissioned Go´zdziewski & Migaszewski 2014). adaptive optics systems from the ground with facility instruments (Oppenheimer et al. 2001; Macintosh et al. • Disk morphology. Large-scale structures in disks 2001; Chauvin et al. 2003; McCarthy & Zuckerman — clumps, asymmetries, warps, gaps, rings, trun- 2004; Carson et al. 2005; Nakajima et al. 2005; cated edges, spiral arms, and geometric offsets — Tanner et al. 2007). When PSF subtraction was can also be used to indirectly infer the presence performed, it usually entailed roll-subtraction (for HST ; of unseen planets and predict their masses and e.g., Liu 2004), self-subtraction with a rotated PSF, or locations (e.g., Wyatt et al. 1999; Ozernoy et al. reference star subtraction. 2000; Kenyon & Bromley 2004). This approach Some of these pioneering programs are especially relies on assumptions about disk surface density noteworthy for their depth and emphasis on statisti- profiles and grain properties, so it is not a com- cal results. Lowrance et al. (2005) targeted 45 sin- pletely model-free measurement, but it is poten- gle young A–M stars with NICMOS in the F 160W tially sensitive to planet masses as low as a few filter (1.6 µm) on board HST . Two brown dwarfs tens of masses (Rosotti et al. 2016). It were uncovered, TWA 5 B (Lowrance et al. 1999) and also enables an immediate mass evaluation with- HR 7372 B (Lowrance et al. 2000), as well as Gl 577 BC, out the need for long-term orbit monitoring. Re- a tight binary companion near the hydrogen-burning cently, Dong et al. (2015) and Zhu et al. (2015) limit. Masciadri et al. (2005) used NaCo at the VLT presented a novel approach along these lines to to obtain deep adaptive optics imaging of 28 young predict the locations and masses widely-separated nearby stars. No substellar companions were found, but companions inducing spiral arms on a circumstellar the importance of thoroughly reporting survey results disk (see also Dong et al. 2016b, Dong et al. 2016a, is highlighted, even for non-detections, a theme that and Jilkova & Zwart 2015). This may prove to be continues today. Focusing exclusively on young moving a valuable way to constrain masses of planetary group members in L′-band enabled Kasper et al. (2007) companions at extremely wide orbital distances. to reach exceptionally low limiting masses for a sample of 22 stars with NaCo. The Palomar and Keck adap- tive optics survey by Metchev & Hillenbrand (2009) is 4. SURVEY OF SURVEYS another especially valuable contribution; they imaged Myriad large high-contrast imaging surveys have been 266 FGK stars and discovered two brown dwarf com- carried out over the past decade4. The most impact- panions, HD 49197 B (Metchev & Hillenbrand 2004) and ful programs are highly focused, carefully designed with HD 203030 B (Metchev & Hillenbrand 2006), implying a +3.1 well-understood biases, and have meticulously-selected substellar occurrence rate of 3.2−2.7%. HD 203030 B target lists to address specific science questions. The was the first young brown dwarf for which signs of a dis- advantages of large surveys include homogeneous obser- crepancy between the field spectral type-effective tem- vations, instrument setups, data reduction pipelines, and perature sequence was recognized, now understood as a statistical treatments of the results. retention of clouds to lower effective temperatures at low Below are summaries of the most substantial high- surface gravities. These groundbreaking surveys helped contrast imaging surveys carried out to date with a focus define the scientific motivation, framework, and early ex- on deep adaptive optics imaging programs that routinely pectations for the first generation planet-finding instru- reach planetary masses and employ modern observing ments and larger observing programs. and post-processing techniques to suppress speckle noise. These surveys produced the first wave of discoveries (Fig- 4.2. The First Generation: Dedicated Instruments, ure 9), opening the door to directly characterizing the Expansive Surveys, and Innovative Speckle atmospheres of exoplanets as well as their orbits through Suppression Techniques astrometric monitoring (Figure 10 and Appendix 4) This section follows an historical approach by outlining early High-contrast imaging is largely driven by advances ground- and space-based experiments, the first gener- in instrumentation and speckle suppression. The first ation of planet-finding instruments and associated sur- wave of instruments specifically designed to image giant veys, and the next generation of instruments character- planets gave rise to large surveys (N≈50–500) targeting ized by extreme adaptive optics systems with exception- mostly young nearby stars. Deep observations in ally high Strehl ratios. pupil-tracking mode (angular differential imaging) have become standardized as a way to distinguish quasi-static 4.1. Early Surveys speckles from planets (Marois et al. 2006). This era is also characterized by the advent of advanced PSF subtraction techniques to optimally remove speckles 4 The basic properties for most of these programs until 2014 are during post-processing. Two especially important summarized in Table 1 of Chauvin et al. (2015). algorithms are the Locally Optimized Combination 15

HR 8799 β Pic 0.5′′ 10 AU b c

b

e

d N N

E E Maire et al. (2015) Nielsen et al. (2014) ′ 1′′ 2′′ LBT/LMIRCam L Gemini−S/NICI KCont Discovery: Marois et al. (2008, 2010) 39 AU Discovery: Lagrange et al. (2009, 2010) 39 AU

HD 95086 51 Eri

N N b b E E Galicher et al. (2014) ′′ ′′ Gemini−S/GPI K1 0.3 Macintosh et al. (2015) 0.5 Discovery: Rameau et al. (2013a, 2013b) 27 AU Gemini−S/GPI H 15 AU

Fig. 9.— Gallery of imaged planets at small separations (<100 AU). HR 8799 harbors four massive planets (5–10 MJup) at orbital distances of 15–70 AU (Marois et al. 2008; Marois et al. 2010b), β Pic hosts a nearly edge-on debris disk and a ≈13 MJup planet at 9 AU (Lagrange et al. 2009a; Lagrange et al. 2010), a ≈5 MJup planet orbits HD 95086 at 56 AU (Rameau et al. 2013c; Rameau et al. 2013b), and 51 Eri hosts a ∼2 MJup planet at 13 AU (Macintosh et al. 2015). Images are from Maire et al. (2015a), Nielsen et al. (2014), Galicher et al. (2014), and Macintosh et al. (2015). of Images (LOCI; Lafreni`ere et al. 2007a), which is non-redundant aperture masking interferometry, adap- based on least-squares minimization of residual speckle tive secondary mirrors, integral field units, high-order noise, and Karhunen-Lo`eve Image Projection (KLIP; adaptive optics systems, and specialized coronagraphs Soummer et al. 2012), a computationally-fast method (e.g., apodized Lyot coronagraph, annular groove phase based on principal component analysis. The introduc- mask coronagraph, vector vortex coronagraph, apodizing tion of these new methods gave rise to an array of phase plate, and four quadrant phase mask; Rouan et al. sophisticated data reduction pipelines with additional 2000; Guyon et al. 2005; Soummer 2005; Mawet et al. features aimed at minimizing biases and avoiding both 2005; Kenworthy et al. 2007; Mawet et al. 2010). Many self- and over-subtraction of planet flux in ADI and of these have been implemented in the first generation of SDI datasets (Marois et al. 2010a; Amara & Quanz instruments in part as testbeds for regular use in second- 2012; Pueyoetal. 2012; Meshkatetal. 2013a; generation systems. These instruments are reviewed Wahhaj et al. 2013a; Brandt et al. 2013; Fergus et al. in detail in Guyon et al. (2006), Beuzit et al. (2007), 2014; Mawet et al. 2014; Marois et al. 2014; Currie et al. Oppenheimer & Hinkley (2009), Perryman (2011), and 2014c; Cantalloube et al. 2015; Rameau et al. 2015; Mawet et al. (2012b). Wahhaj et al. 2015; Savransky 2015; Dou et al. 2015; Hagelberg et al. 2016; Gonzalez et al. 2016). 4.2.1. VLT and MMT Simultaneous Differential Imager The suite of instrumentation for high-contrast imag- Survey ing has ballooned over the past 15 years and in- This survey (PI: B Biller) targeted 45 young stars cludes dual-channel imagers, infrared wavefront sensors, between 2003–2006 with ages .250 Myr and distances 16 HR 8799 β Pic 2 2026 0.4 2023

1 b c 0.2 2020 2020 2030 2040 0 2050 0.0 e Dec (") Dec (") ∆ ∆ 2017 d −0.2 −1

−0.4 −2 2 1 0 −1 −2 0.4 0.2 0.0 −0.2 −0.4 ∆RA (") ∆RA (")

Fig. 10.— The orbits of HR 8799 bcde and β Pic b. Astrometric monitoring has revealed significant orbital motion over the past decade, enabling measurements of their Keplerian orbital parameters and offering clues about their dynamical history. The HR 8799 planets are on low-eccentricity orbits with some evidence that HR 8799 d may be mutually misaligned with the other planets, which otherwise appear to be coplanar (e.g., Pueyo et al. 2015). β Pic b follows a nearly edge-on orbit with a low eccentricity (e.g., Millar-Blanchaer et al. 2015). Astrometric measurements are compiled in Appendix 4. Orbits depicted here are from Zurlo et al. (2016) and Nielsen et al. (2014). within 50 pc using Simultaneous Differential Imagers 4.2.3. MMT L′ and M-Band Survey of Nearby Sun-Like mounted on the VLT and MMT (Biller et al. 2007). It Stars was among the first to utilize simultaneous differential Heinze et al. (2010b) carried out a deep L′- and M- imaging to search for cold planets around a large sample band survey of 54 nearby FGK stars at the MMT with of young stars. The SDI method takes advantage of ex- Clio. The MMT adaptive optics system uses a de- pected spectral differences between the star, which has a formable secondary mirror which reduces the thermal nearly flat continuum, and cool, methanated planets by background by minimizing the number of optical ele- simultaneously imaging in multiple narrow-band filters ments along the light path. Observations were car- across this deep absorption feature at 1.6 µm. Because ried out between 2006–2007 with angular differential speckles radially scale with wavelength while real objects imaging. The image processing pipeline is described remain stationary, their observations also had some sen- in Heinze et al. (2008) and Heinze et al. (2010b). The sitivity to warmer planets without methane (though it target ages are generally older (∼0.1–2 Gyr) but the is now clear that the onset of methane occurs at lower long wavelengths of the observations and proximity of temperatures for giant planets than for brown dwarfs). the sample (.25 pc) enabled sensitivity to planetary No substellar companions were found, which ruled out masses for most of the targets. One new low-mass stellar a linearly-flat extension of close-in giant planets out to companion was discovered and the binary brown dwarf 45 AU with high confidence. HD 130948 BC was recovered in the survey. The statisti- cal results are detailed in Heinze et al. (2010a); they find 4.2.2. GDPS: Gemini Deep Planet Survey that no more than 50% of Sun-like stars host ≥5 MJup planets between 30–94 AU and no more than 15% host GDPS (PI: D. Lafreni`ere) was a large high-contrast ≥10 MJup planets between 22–100 AU at the 90% confi- imaging program at the Gemini-North 8.1-m telescope dence level. with the NIRI camera and Altair AO system focusing on 85 stars, 16 of which were identified as close multiples 4.2.4. NaCo Survey of Young Nearby Austral Stars (Lafreni`ere et al. 2007b). The sample contained a mix of nearby GKM stars within 35 pc comprising then-known This program utilized NaCo at the VLT between 2002– or suspected nearby young moving group members, stars 2007 to target 88 young GKM stars within 100 pc with statistically young ages, and several others harbor- (Chauvin et al. 2010). 17 new close multiple systems ing circumstellar disks. Altogether the ages span 10 Myr were uncovered and deep imaging was obtained for 65 to ∼5 Gyr. The observations were taken in ADI mode single young stars. Observations were taken with a with the CH4S filter, and PSF subtraction was carried Lyot coronagraph in H and KS bands and PSF sub- out with the LOCI algorithm (Lafreni`ere et al. 2007a). traction was performed with azimuthally-averaged sub- No substellar companions were discovered, implying an traction and high-pass filtering. occurrence rate of <23% for >2 MJup planets between The most important discovery from this survey was 25–420 AU and <12% for >2 MJup planets between 50– 2M1207–3932 b, a remarkable 5 ± 2 MJup companion to 295 AU at the 95% confidence level. a 25 MJup brown dwarf in the 10 Myr TWA moving group 17

(Chauvin et al. 2004; Chauvin et al. 2005a) enabled with and spiral structures down to 0′′. 1 with exceptional clar- infrared wavefront sensing. The unusually red colors ity (e.g., Thalmann et al. 2010; Hashimoto et al. 2011; and spectral shape of 2M1207–3932 b (Patience et al. Mayama et al. 2012; Muto et al. 2012). 2010) have made it the prototype of young dusty L The statistical results for debris disks are presented in dwarfs, now understood as a cloudy extension of the Janson et al. (2013c). At the 95% confidence level, they L dwarf sequence to low temperatures (Barman et al. find that <15–30% of stars host >10 MJup planets at 2011b; Marley et al. 2012). This system is also unusual the gap edge. Brandt et al. (2014a) inferred a frequency from the perspective of brown dwarf demographics; the of 1.0–3.1% at the 68% confidence level for 5–70 MJup mass ratio of ∼0.2 and separation of ∼41 AU make it an companions between 10–100 AU by combining results outlier compared to brown dwarf mass ratio and sepa- from the SEEDS moving group sample (Brandt et al. ration distributions in the field (Burgasser et al. 2007). 2014c), the SEEDS disk sample (Janson et al. 2013c), Two other substellar companions were discovered in this the SEEDS sample (Yamamoto et al. 2013), survey: GSC 08047-00232 B (Chauvin et al. 2005c), also GDPS (Lafreni`ere et al. 2007b), and the NICI Campaign independently found by Neuh¨auser et al. (2003), and moving group sample (Biller et al. 2013). AB Pic B (Chauvin et al. 2005b), which resides near the 4.2.7. deuterium-burning limit. Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign The Gemini NICI Planet-Finding Campaign (PI: M. 4.2.5. NaCo Survey of Young Nearby Dusty Stars Liu) was a 500-hour survey targeting about 230 young This VLT/NaCo survey targeted 59 young nearby stars of all spectral classes with deep imaging using AFGK stars with ages .200 Myr and distances within the Near-Infrared Coronagraphic Imager on the Gemini- 65 pc (Rameau et al. 2013a). Most of the sample are South 8.1-m telescope (Liu et al. 2010). NICI is an imag- members of young moving groups and the majority (76%) ing instrument encompassing an adaptive optics system, were chosen to have mid-infrared excesses, preferentially tapered and partly-translucent Lyot coronagraph, and selected for having debris disks. Observations were car- dual-channel camera (Chun et al. 2008). Campaign ob- ried out in L′-band between 2009–2012 using angular dif- servations spanned 2008–2012 and were carried out in ferential imaging. Four targets in the sample had known two modes: single-channel H-band with angular differ- substellar companions (HR 7329, AB Pic, HR 8799, and ential imaging, and simultaneous dual-channel (CH4S at β Pic). No new substellar companions were discovered 1.578 µm and CH4L at 1.652 µm) angular and spectral but eight new visual binaries were resolved. A statistical differential imaging to maximize sensitivity to methane- dominated planets. The observing strategy and re- analysis of AF stars between 5–320 AU and 3–14 MJup +3.6 duction pipeline are detailed in Biller et al. (2008) and implies a giant planet occurrence rate of 7.4−2.4% (68% Wahhaj et al. (2013a), and NICI astrometric calibration confidence level). is discussed in Hayward et al. (2014). One previously-known brown dwarf companion was re- 4.2.6. SEEDS: Strategic Exploration of Exoplanets and solved into a close binary, HIP 79797 Bab (Nielsen et al. Disks with Subaru 2013), and three new substellar companions were found: The SEEDS survey (PI: M. Tamura) was a 125-night PZ Tel B, a highly eccentric brown dwarf companion program on the 8.2-m Subaru Telescope targeting about in the β Pic moving group (Biller et al. 2010); CD- 500 stars to search for giant planets and spatially re- 35 2722 B, a young mid-L dwarf in the AB Dor moving solve circumstellar disks (Tamura et al. 2009). Tamura group (Wahhaj et al. 2011); and HD 1160 B, a substellar (2016) provide an overview of the observing strategy, companion orbiting a young massive star (Nielsen et al. target samples, and main results. Observations were 2012). No new planets were discovered but β Pic b was carried out with the HiCIAO camera behind Subaru’s recovered during the survey and its orbit was shown to be AO188 adaptive optics system over five years beginning misaligned with the inner and outer disks (Nielsen et al. in 2009. The sample contained a mixture of young stars 2014; Males et al. 2014). Two debris disks surround- in star-forming regions, moving groups, and open clus- ing HR 4796 A and HD 141569 were also resolved with ters; nearby stars and white dwarfs; and stars with pro- unprecedented detail (Wahhaj et al. 2014; Biller et al. toplanetary disks and debris disks. Most of the observa- 2015b). tions were taken in H-band in angular differential imag- The statistical results are organized in several stud- ing mode as well as polarimetric differential imaging for ies. From a sample of 80 members of young moving young disk-bearing stars. The ADI reduction pipeline is groups, Biller et al. (2013) measured the frequency of 1– described in Brandt et al. (2013). 20 MJup planets between 10–150 AU to be <6–18% at Three new substellar companions were found in the 95.4% confidence level, depending on which hot-start SEEDS: GJ 758 B (Thalmann et al. 2009), κ And B evolutionary models are adopted. The high-mass sample (Carson et al. 2013), and GJ 504 b (Kuzuhara et al. of 70 B and A-type stars was described in Nielsen et al. 2013). The masses of GJ 504 b and κ And B may (2013); they found that the frequency of >4 MJup plan- fall in the planetary regime depending on the ages and ets between 59–460 AU is <20% at 95% confidence. metallicities of the system, which are still under debate. Wahhaj et al. (2013b) found that <13% of debris disk Two brown dwarf companions found in the Pleiades stars have ≥5 MJup planets beyond 80 AU at 95% con- (HD 23514 B and HII 1348 B; Yamamoto et al. 2013) fidence from observations of 57 targets. had also independently been discovered by other groups. 4.2.8. SEEDS resolved a remarkable number of protoplanetary IDPS: International Deep Planet Search and transition disks in polarized light— over two dozen IDPS is an expansive imaging survey carried out at in total — revealing previously unknown gaps, rings, the VLT with NaCo, Keck with NIRC2, Gemini-South 18 with NICI, and Gemini-North with NIRI targeting ≈300 The statistical results from the survey are presented in young A–M stars (PI: C. Marois). This 14-year survey Bowler et al. (2015b). No planets were found, implying was mostly carried out in K band, though much of the an occurrence rate of <10.3% for 1–13 MJup planets be- survey comprised a mix of broad- and narrow-band near- tween 10–100 AU at the 95% confidence level assuming infrared filters. Target ages were mostly .300 Myr and hot-start models and <16.0% assuming cold-start mod- encompassed distances from ∼10–80 pc (Galicher et al. els. For the most massive planets between 5–13 MJup, 2016, submitted). the upper limits are <6.0% and <9.9% for hot- and cold- The main result from this survey was the discovery of start cooling models. the HR 8799 planets (Marois et al. 2008; Marois et al. The second, parallel phase of the PALMS survey is an 2010b). Altogether over 1000 unique point sources were ongoing program targeting a larger sample of ∼400 young found, most of which were meticulously shown to be M dwarfs primarily at Keck with shallower contrasts background stars from multi-epoch astrometry (Galicher (Bowler et al., in prep.). Initial discoveries include two et al. 2016, submitted). The preliminary analysis of substellar companions: 2MASS J01225093–2439505 B, a subset of high-mass A and F stars spanning ≈1.5– an L-type member of AB Dor at the planet/brown dwarf 3.0 M⊙ was presented in Vigan et al. (2012). 39 new boundary with an unusually red spectrum (Bowler et al. observations in H, K, and CH4S filters were carried out 2013; Hinkley et al. 2015a), and 2MASS J02155892– in angular differential imaging mode between 2007–2012 0929121C (Bowler et al. 2015c), a brown dwarf in a close and were combined with three high-mass targets from quadruple system which probably belongs to the Tuc-Hor the literature. Stellar ages span 8–400 Myr with dis- moving group. tances out to 90 pc and comprise a mix of young moving 4.2.10. group members, young field stars, and debris disk hosts. NaCo-LP: VLT Large Program to Probe the The subsample of 42 massive stars includes three hosts Occurrence of Exoplanets and Brown Dwarfs at Wide Orbits of substellar companions: HR 8799, β Pic, and HR 7329, a β Pic moving group member with a wide brown dwarf The NaCo-LP survey was a Large Program at the VLT companion (Lowrance et al. 2000). Including the detec- focused on 86 young, bright, primarily FGK stars (PI: J.- tions of planets around HR 8799 and β Pic, Vigan et al. L. Beuzit). H-band observations were carried out with (2012) measure the occurrence rate of 3–14 MJup planets NaCo in ADI mode between 2009–2013 (Chauvin et al. +10.1 2015). The target sample is described in detail in between 5–320 AU to be 8.7−2.8 % at 68% confidence. The complete statistical analysis for the entire sample Desidera et al. (2015); stars were chosen to be single, is presented in Galicher et al. (2016, submitted). They have ages .200 Myr, and lie within 100 pc. Many of merge their own results for 292 stars with the GDPS these stars were identified as new members of young mov- and NaCo-LP surveys, totaling a combined sample of ing groups. 356 targets. From this they infer an occurrence rate Although no new substellar companions were dis- +2.80 covered, an intriguing white dwarf was found orbiting of 1.05−0.70% (95% confidence interval) for 0.5–14 MJup planets between 20–300 AU. They do not find evidence HD 8049, an ostensibly young K2 star that may instead that this frequency depends on stellar host mass. In ad- be much older due to mass exchange with its now evolved dition, 16 of the 59 binaries resolved in IDPS are new. companion (Zurlo et al. 2013). New observations of the spatially resolved debris disk around HD 61005 (“the 4.2.9. Moth”) were presented by Buenzli et al. (2010), and 11 PALMS: Planets Around Low-Mass Stars new close binaries were resolved during this program The PALMS survey (PI: B. Bowler) is a deep imaging (Chauvin et al. 2015). search for planets and brown dwarfs orbiting low-mass The statistical analysis of the sample of single stars stars (0.1–0.6 M⊙) carried out at Keck Observatory with was performed in Chauvin et al. (2015). Based on a sub- NIRC2 and Subaru Telescope with HiCIAO. Deep coron- sample of 51 young FGK stars, they found that <15% of agraphic observations were acquired for 78 single young Sun-like stars host planets with masses >5 MJup between M dwarfs in H- and Ks-bands between 2010–2013 us- 100–500 AU and <10% host >10 MJup planets between ing angular differential imaging. An additional 27 stars 50–500 AU at the 95% confidence level. Reggiani et al. were found to be close binaries. Targets largely originate (2016) use these NaCo-LP null results together with ad- from Shkolnik et al. (2009), Shkolnik et al. (2012), and ditional deep archival observations to study the compan- an additional GALEX-selected sample (E. Shkolnik et ion mass function as it relates to formation al., in preparation). Most of these lie within 40 pc and and planet formation. From their full sample of 199 Sun- have ages between 20–620 Myr; about one third of the like stars, they find that the results from direct imag- sample are members of young moving groups. The ob- ing are consistent with the superposition of the planet servations and PSF subtraction pipeline are described in mass function determined from radial velocity surveys Bowler et al. (2015b). and the stellar companion mass ratio distribution down Four substellar companions were found in this pro- to 5 MJup, suggesting that many planetary-mass com- gram: 1RXS J235133.3+312720 B (Bowler et al. panions uncovered with direct imaging may originate 2012a), GJ 3629 B (Bowleretal. 2012b), from the tail of the brown dwarf mass distribution in- 1RXS J034231.8+121622 B (Bowler et al. 2015b), stead of being the most massive representatives of the and 2MASS J15594729+4403595 B (Bowler et al. giant planet population. 2015b). 1RXS J235133.3+312720 B is a particularly 4.3. useful benchmark brown dwarf because it orbits a mem- Other First Generation Surveys ber of a young moving group (AB Dor) and therefore Several smaller, more focused surveys have also been has a well-constrained age (≈120 Myr). carried out with angular differential imaging: Apai et al. 19

2008 targeted 8 debris disk hosts with NaCo us- Results from the Project 1640 survey include several ing simultaneous differential imaging; Ehrenreich et al. discoveries of faint stellar companions to massive A stars (2010) imaged 38 high-mass stars primarily with NaCo; (Zimmerman et al. 2010; Hinkley et al. 2010) and follow- Janson et al. (2011a) observed 15 B and A stars with up astrometric and spectral characterization of known NIRI; Delorme et al. (2012) presented observations of substellar companions (Crepp et al. 2015; Hinkley et al. 16 young M dwarfs in L′-band with NaCo; Maire et al. 2013). In addition, Oppenheimer et al. (2013) and (2014) targeted 16 young AFGK stars with NaCo’s four- Pueyo et al. (2015) presented detailed spectroscopic and quadrant phase mask, simultaneous differential imaging, astrometric analysis of the HR 8799 planets and found and angular differential imaging; Meshkat et al. (2015a) intriguing evidence for mutually dissimilar spectral prop- used NaCo’s Apodizing Phase Plate coronagraph in L′ erties and signs of non-coplanar orbits. band to image six young debris disk hosts with gaps as 4.4.2. part of the Holey Debris Disk survey; and Meshkat et al. LEECH: LBTI Exozodi Common Hunt (2015b) also used the APP at NaCo to image a sam- LEECH is an ongoing ∼70-night high-contrast imag- ple of 13 A- and F-type stars in search ing program (PI: A. Skemer) at the twin 8.4-m Large of planets, uncovering a probable brown dwarf around Binocular Telescope. Survey observations began in 2013 HD 984 (Meshkat et al. 2015c). The Lyot Project is an- and are carried out in angular differential imaging mode other survey with important contributions for its early in L′-band with LMIRcam utilizing deformable sec- use of coronagraphy behind an extreme adaptive op- ondary mirrors to maximize sensitivity at mid-IR wave- tics system (Oppenheimer et al. 2004). This survey lengths by limiting thermal emissivity from warm op- was carried out at the 3.6-m AEOS telescope equipped tics (Skemer et al. 2014b). The target sample focuses on with a 941-actuator deformable mirror and targeted 86 intermediate-age stars <1 Gyr including members of the nearby bright stars using angular differential imaging ∼500 Myr Ursa Majoris moving group, massive BA stars, (Leconte et al. 2010). and nearby young FGK stars. In addition to searching for new companions, this sur- 4.4. The Second Generation: Extreme Adaptive Optics, vey is also characterizing known planets using the unique Exceptional Strehl Ratios, and Optimized Integral mid-IR instrumentation, sensitivity, and filter suite at Field Units the LBT. Maire et al. (2015b) refined the orbits of the The transition to second-generation planet-finding in- HR 8799 planets and found them to be consistent with struments began over the past few years. This new era 8:4:2:1 mean motion resonances. Skemer et al. (2016) is characterized by regular implementation of high-order observed GJ 504 b in three narrow-band filters spanning (“extreme”) adaptive optics systems with thousands of 3.7–4.0 µm. Model fits indicate an exceptionally low actuators and exceptionally low residual wavefront er- effective temperature of ≈540 K and enhanced metal- rors; pyramid wavefront sensors providing better sensi- licity, possibly pointing to an origin through core ac- tivity and higher precision wavefront correction; Strehl cretion. Additionally, Schlieder et al. (2016) presented ratios approaching (and often exceeding) 90% at near- LEECH observations and dynamical mass measurements infrared wavelengths; high-contrast integral field units the Ursa Majoris binary NO UMa. Recently the integral designed for on-axis observations enabling speckle sub- field unit Arizona Lenslets for Exoplanet Spectroscopy traction and low-resolution spectroscopy; sensitivity to (ALES; Skemer et al. 2015) was installed inside LMIR- smaller inner working angles than first-generation instru- cam and will enable integral-field spectroscopy of planets ments; and advanced coronagraphy. between 3–5 µm for the first time. 4.4.1. Project 1640 4.4.3. GPIES: Gemini Planet Imager Exoplanet Survey Project 1640 is a large ongoing survey (PI: R. Op- GPIES is an ongoing 890-hour, 600-star survey to im- penheimer) and high-contrast imaging instrument with age extrasolar giant planets and debris disks with the the same name located behind the PALM-3000 second- Gemini Planet Imager at Gemini-South (PI: B. Mac- generation adaptive optics system at the Palomar Obser- intosh). GPI is expressly built to image planets at vatory 200-inch (5.1-meter) Hale Telescope. The instru- small inner working angles; its high-order adaptive op- ment itself contains an apodized-pupil Lyot coronagraph tics system incorporates an apodized pupil Lyot coro- and integral field unit that samples 32 spectral channels nagraph, integral field spectrograph, imaging polarime- across Y , J, and H bands (Hinkley et al. 2011), produc- ter, and (imminent) non-redundant masking capabilities ing a low-resolution spectrum to broadly characterize the (Macintosh et al. 2014). Survey observations targeting physical properties of faint companions (Roberts et al. young nearby stars began in 2014 and will span three 2012; Rice et al. 2015). The survey consists of two years. phases, the first (now concluded) with the original Palo- Macintosh et al. (2015) presented the discovery of 51 mar Adaptive Optics System (PALM-241; Troy et al. Eri b, the first exoplanet found in GPIES and the lowest- 2000) and a second ongoing three-year program focus- mass planet imaged in thermal emission to date. This re- ing on nearby massive stars with the upgraded PALM- markable young, methanated T dwarf has a contrast of 3000 adaptive optics system (Dekany et al. 2013). The 14.5 mag in H-band at a separation of 0′′. 45, which trans- data reduction pipeline is described in Zimmerman et al. lates into a mass of only 2 MJup at 13 AU assuming hot- (2011) and a detailed treatment of speckle subtrac- start cooling models. It is also the only imaged planet tion, precision astrometry, and robust spectrophotom- consistent with the most pessimistic cold-start evolution- etry can be found in Crepp et al. (2011), Pueyo et al. ary models, in which case its mass may be as high as (2012), Oppenheimer et al. (2013), Fergus et al. (2014), 12 MJup. De Rosa et al. (2015) obtained follow-up obser- and Pueyo et al. (2015). vations with GPI and showed that 51 Eri b shares a com- 20 mon proper motion with its host and exhibits slight (but ing phase plate coronagraphs were recently installed in significant) orbital motion. Other initial results from this MagAO and other upgrades such as an optical integral survey include astrometry and a refined orbit for β Pic b field unit are possible in the future. (Macintosh et al. 2014), as well as resolved imaging of Subaru Coronagraphic Extreme Adaptive Optics the debris disks around HD 106906 (Kalas et al. 2015) (SCExAO; PI: O. Guyon) is being built for the Subaru and HD 131835 (Hung et al. 2015). telescope and is the newest extreme adaptive optics sys- 4.4.4. tem on a large telescope. A detailed description of all SPHERE GTO Survey facets of this instrument is described in Jovanovic et al. SPHERE (Spectro-Polarimetric High-contrast Exo- (2015). In short, a pyramid wavefront sensor is coupled planet Research) is an extreme adaptive optics system with a 2000-element deformable mirror to produce Strehl (SAXO) and versatile instrument for high-contrast imag- ratios in excess of 90%. The instrument is particularly ing and spectroscopy at the VLT with a broad range of flexible, allowing for a variety of setups and instrument capabilities (Beuzit et al. 2008). IRDIS (Dohlen et al. subcomponents including speckle nulling to suppress 2008) offers classical and dual-band imaging (Vigan et al. static and slowly changing speckles (Martinache et al. 2010), dual-polarization imaging (Langlois et al. 2014), 2014), a near-infrared science camera (currently Hi- and long-slit spectroscopy (Vigan et al. 2008); IFS CIAO), sub-diffraction-limited interferometric science in provides low-resolution (R∼30–50) integral field spec- the visible with VAMPIRES (Norris et al. 2015) and troscopy spanning 0.95–1.65 µm (Claudi et al. 2008); FIRST (Huby et al. 2012), high-contrast integral field and ZIMPOL enables diffraction-limited imaging and po- spectroscopy (Brandt et al. 2014b), and coronagraphy larimetry in the optical (Thalmann et al. 2008). As part with phase-induced amplitude apodization (Guyon 2003) of a guaranteed time observing program, the SPHERE and vector vortex coronagraphs (Mawet et al. 2010). GTO team is carrying out a large ongoing survey (PI: J.-L. Beuzit) with a range of science goals. About 200 4.5. The Occurrence Rate of Giant Planets on Wide nights of this time are devoted to a deep near-infrared Orbits: Meta-Analysis of Imaging Surveys imaging survey (SHINE: SpHere Infrared survEy) to The frequency and mass-period distribution of planets search for and characterize exoplanets around 400–600 spanning various orbital distances, stellar host masses, ∼ stars, while the remaining 60 nights will be used for and system ages provides valuable clues about the domi- a broad range of science including spatially-resolved ob- nant processes shaping the formation and evolution of servations of circumstellar disks and optical imaging of planetary systems. These measurements are best ad- planets. dressed with large samples and uniform statistical anal- Initial results from the SHINE survey include ob- yses. Nielsen et al. (2008) carried out the first such servations of the brown dwarf GJ 758 B (Vigan et al. large-scale study based on adaptive optics imaging sur- 2016), PZ Tel B and HD 1160 B (Maire et al. 2016), veys from Biller et al. (2007) and Masciadri et al. (2005). HD 106906 (Lagrange et al. 2016), and the HR 8799 From their sample of 60 unique stars they found an up- planets (Zurlo et al. 2016; Bonnefoy et al. 2016). Other per limit of 20% for >4 MJup planets between 20–100 AU results have focused on resolved imaging of the debris at the 95% confidence level. This was expanded to 118 disk surrounding HD 61005, which may be a product of targets in Nielsen & Close (2010) by including the GDPS a recent collision (Olofsson et al. 2016), and survey of Lafreni`ere et al. (2007b), resulting in the same HD 135344 B, host of a transition disk with striking spi- upper limit and planet mass regime but for a broader ral arm structure (Stolker et al. 2016). Boccaletti et al. range of separations of 8–911 AU at 68% confidence. (2015) uncovered intriguing and temporally evolving fea- Vigan et al. (2012) and Rameau et al. (2013a) combined tures in AU Mic’s debris disk. In addition, Garufi et al. their own observations of high-mass stars with previous (2016) presented deep IRDIS near-infrared images and +10.1 surveys and measured occurrence rates of 8.7−2.8 % (for visible ZIMPOL polarimetric observations of HD 100546 +8.7 revealing a complex disk environment with considerable 3–14 MJup planets between 5–320 AU) and 16.1−5.3% structure and resolved K-band emission at the location (for 1–13 MJup planets between 1–1000 AU), respec- of the candidate protoplanet HD 100546 b. tively. Brandt et al. (2014a) incorporated the SEEDS, GDPS, and the NICI moving group surveys and found 4.4.5. Other Second Generation Instruments and Surveys a frequency of 1.0–3.1% for 5–70 MJup companions be- A number of other novel instruments and forthcom- tween 10–100 AU. Recently, Galicher et al. (2016, sub- ing surveys bear highlighting. MagAO (PI: L. Close) at mitted) combined results from IDPS, GDPS, and the the Magellan 6.5-m Clay telescope is a versatile adap- NaCo Survey of Young Nearby Austral Stars and found +2.80 tive optics system consisting of a 585-actuator adap- an occurrence rate of 1.05−0.70% for 0.5–14 MJup com- tive secondary mirror, pyramid wavefront sensor, and panions between 20–300 AU based on a sample of 356 two science cameras offering simultaneous diffraction- unique stars. Breaking this into bins did limited imaging spanning the visible (0.6–1.05 µm) not reveal any signs of a trend with stellar host mass. with VisAO and near-infrared (1–5.3 µm) with Clio2 Here I reexamine the occurrence rate of giant planets (Close et al. 2012; Morzinski et al. 2014; Morzinski et al. with a meta-analysis of the largest and deepest high- 2015). Strehl ratios of ∼20–30% in the optical are open- contrast imaging surveys. 696 contrast curves are as- ing up new science fronts including deep red-optical ob- sembled from the literature from the programs outlined servations of exoplanets (Males et al. 2014; Wu et al. in Section 4.2. For stars with more than one observa- 2015), characterization of accreting protoplanets in Hα tion, the deeper contrast curve at 1′′ is chosen. Targets (Sallum et al. 2015a), and high spatial resolution imag- with stellar companions within 100 AU are removed from ing down to ∼20 mas (Close et al. 2013). Vector apodiz- the sample because binaries can both inhibit planet for- 21

BA FGK M All N=110 N=155 N=118 N=384

100 0.1

0.7 0.9 0.1 0.5

0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7

0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 ) Jup

10 0.5

0.3

0.3

0.1 0.1

0.1 Planet Mass (M

1 0.1

1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 1 10 100 1000 Semimajor Axis (AU)

Fig. 11.— Mean sensitivity maps from a meta-analysis of 384 unique stars with published high-contrast imaging observations. M dwarfs provide the highest sensitivities to lower planet masses in the contrast-limited regime. Altogether, current surveys probe the lowest masses at separations of ∼30–300 AU. Contours denote 10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, and 90% sensitivity limits. untested for common proper motion. These ambigu- 0.4 ous candidates cannot be ignored in a statistical anal- ysis because one (or more) could be indeed be bound. Direct Imaging M=5−13 M , a=30−300 AU In these cases, contrast curves are individually trun- Jup cated one standard deviation above the brightest can- 0.3 Radial Velcity didate. Ages are taken from the literature except for K > 20 m/s, a < 2.5 AU BA members of young moving groups, for which the most +3.7 2.8 −2.3 % recent (and systematically older) ages of young moving 0.2 groups from Bell et al. (2015) are adopted. Most ages FGK in the sample are less than 300 Myr and within 100 pc. M All < 4.1%

Planet Fraction +0.7 Altogether this leaves 384 unique stars spanning B2–M6 < 3.9% 0.6 % −0.5 spectral types: 76 from Bowler et al. (2015b), 72 from 0.1 Biller et al. (2013), 61 from Nielsen et al. (2013), 54 from Lafreni`ere et al. (2007b), 45 from Brandt et al. (2014c), 30 from Janson et al. (2013c), 25 from Vigan et al. 0.0 (2012), 14 from Wahhaj et al. (2013b), and 7 from 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Janson et al. (2011a). Stellar Mass (M ) Sun Sensitivity maps and planet occurrence rates are de- Fig. 12.— Probability distributions for the occurrence rate giant planets from a meta-analysis of direct imaging surveys in the liter- rived following Bowler et al. (2015b). For a given planet . ature. 2.8+3 7% of BA stars, <4.1% of FGK stars, and <3.9% of M mass and semimajor axis, a population of artificial plan- −2.3 ets on random circular orbits are generated in a Monte dwarfs harbor giant planets between 5–13 MJup and 30–300 AU. The correlation between stellar host mass and giant planet fre- Carlo fashion and converted into apparent magnitudes quency at small separations (<2.5 AU) from Johnson et al. (2010) and separations using Cond hot-start evolutionary mod- is shown in blue. Larger sample sizes are needed to discern any +0.7 els from Baraffe et al. (2003), the age of the host star, such correlation on wide orbits. 0.6−0.5% of stars of any mass host and the distance to the system, including uncertainties giant planets over the same mass and separation range. in age and distance. These are compared with the mea- sured contrast curve to infer the fractional sensitivity mation and dynamically disturb planetary orbits. Most at each grid point spanning 30 logarithmically-uniform candidate planets uncovered during these surveys are re- bins in mass and separation between 1–1000 AU and jected as background stars from second epoch observa- 0.5–100 MJup. When available, fractional field of view tions, but some candidates are either not recovered or coverage is taken into account. Contrasts measured in are newly revealed in follow-up data. Because of finite CH S filters are converted to H-band using an empir- telescope allocation, some of these candidates remain 4 22 104 10 103

J Mass (M ) 1

Earth S 2

10 Jup N 0.1 U ) Mass (M Direct Imaging 10 Radial Velocity Transit 10−2 VE Microlensing 1 10−3 10 −2 0.1 1 10 10 2 10 3 Separation (AU) Fig. 13.— The demographics of exoplanets from direct imaging (dark blue), radial velocity (light blue), transit (orange), and microlensing (green) surveys. Planets detected with radial velocities are minimum masses. It remains unclear whether imaged planets and brown dwarfs represent distinct populations or whether they form a continuous distribution down to the fragmentation limit. Directly imaged substellar companions are compiled from the literature, while planets found with other methods are from exoplanets.eu as of April 2016. ical color-spectral type relationship based on synthetic ets that were either discovered or successfully recovered colors of ultracool dwarfs from the SpeX Prism Library in these surveys: β Pic, with a planet at 9 AU, and (Burgasser 2014) as well as the spectral type-effective HR 8799, with planets spanning 15–70 AU. HR 8799 temperature sequence from Golimowski et al. (2004a)5. is treated as a single detection. The most precise oc- The mean sensitivity maps for all 384 targets and sep- currence rate measurement is between 5–13 MJup and arate bins containing BA stars (110 targets), FGK stars 30–300 AU. Over these ranges, the frequency of plan- +3.7 (155 targets), and M dwarfs (118 targets) are shown in ets orbiting BA, FGK, and M stars is 2.8−2.3%, <4.1%, Figure 11. In general, surveys of high-mass stars probe and <3.9%, respectively (Figure 12). Here upper limits higher planet masses than deep imaging around M dwarfs are 95% confidence intervals. Although there are hints owing to differences in the host stars’ intrinsic luminosi- of a higher giant planet occurrence rate around mas- ties. The most sensitive region for all stars is between sive stars analogous to the well-established correlation at ∼30–300 AU, with less coverage at extremely wide sep- small separations (Johnson et al. 2007; Lovis & Mayor arations because of limited fields of view and at small 2007; Johnson et al. 2010; Bowler et al. 2010b), this separations in contrast-limited regimes. trend is not yet statistically significant at wide orbital The occurrence rate of giant planets for all targets and distances and requires larger sample sizes in each stel- for each stellar mass bin are listed in Table 3, which as- lar mass bin to unambiguously test this correlation. sumes logarithmically-uniform distributions in mass and Marginalizing over stellar host mass, the overall giant separation (see Section 6.5 of Bowler et al. 2015b for de- planet occurrence rate for the full sample of 384 stars tails). The mode and 68.3% minimum credible inter- +0.7 is 0.6−0.5%, which happens to be comparable to the fre- val (also known as the highest posterior density inter- quency of hot around FGK stars in the field val) of the planet frequency probability distribution are (1.2 ± 0.4%; Wright et al. 2012) and in the Kepler sam- reported. Two massive stars in the sample host plan- ple (0.5 ± 0.1%; Howard et al. 2012). However, com- pared to the high occurrence rate of giant planets (0.3– 5 Synthesized colors of ultracool dwarfs using the Keck/NIRC2 10 MJup) with orbital periods out to 2000 days (∼10%; CH4S and HMKO filter profiles yields the following rela- Cumming et al. 2008), massive gas giants are clearly 4 i tion: CH4S–HMKO = Pi=0ciSpT , where c0=0.03913178, quite rare at wide orbital distances. c1=0.008678245, c2=–0.001542768, c3=0.0001033761, c4=– −6 2.902588×10 , and SpT is the numerical near-infrared spectral 5. BROWN DWARFS, GIANT PLANETS, AND THE type (M0=1.0, L0=10.0, T0=20.0). This relation is valid from COMPANION MASS FUNCTION M3–T8 and the rms of the fit is 0.025 mag. Golimowski et al. (2004a) provide an empirical Teff (SpT) relationship, but the Direct imaging has shown that planetary-mass com- inverse SpT(Teff ) is necessary for this filter conversion at a given panions exist at unexpectedly wide separations but the mass and age. Refitting the same data from Golimowski et al. 4 i provenance of these objects remains elusive. There is yields the following: SpT = Pi=0ciTeff , where c0=36.56779, −6 −09 substantial evidence that the tail-end of the star forma- c1=–0.004666549, c2=–9.872890×10 , c3=4.108142×10 , −13 c4=– 4.854263×10 . This is valid for 700 K < Teff < 3900 K, tion process can produce objects extending from low- the rms is 1.89 mag, and SpT is the same numerical near-infrared mass stars at the hydrogen burning limit (≈75 MJup) spectral type as above. to brown dwarfs at the opacity limit for fragmenta- 23 tion (≈5–10 MJup), which corresponds to the mini- may depend on planet composition, core mass, and ac- mum mass of a pressure-supported fragment during the cretion history (Spiegel et al. 2011; Bodenheimer et al. collapse of a molecular cloud core (Low & Lynden-Bell 2013; Mordasini 2013). Uncertainties in planet lumi- 1976; Silk 1977; Boss 2001; Bate et al. 2002; Bate nosities, evolutionary histories, metallicities, and ages 2009). Indeed, isolated objects with inferred masses can also produce large systematic errors in inferred below 10 MJup have been found in a range of con- planet masses (see Section 3), rendering inconsequen- texts over the past decade: in star-forming regions tial any sharp boundary set by mass. However, despite (Lucas et al. 2001; Luhman et al. 2009a; Scholz et al. these shortcomings, this border lies in the planet/brown 2012; Muzic et al. 2015), among closer young stel- dwarf “mass valley” and may still serve as a pragmatic lar associations (Liu et al. 2013; Gagn´eet al. 2015a; (if flawed) qualitative division between two populations Kellogg et al. 2016; Schneider et al. 2016), and at much formed predominantly with their host stars and predom- older ages as Y dwarfs in the field (Cushing et al. 2011; inantly in protoplanetary disks. Kirkpatrick et al. 2012; Beichman et al. 2013). Simi- Observational tests of formation routes will eventually larly, several systems with companions below ≈10 MJup provide the necessary tools to understand the relation- are difficult to explain with any formation scenario ship between these populations. This can be carried out other than cloud fragmentation: 2M1207–3932 Ab is a at an individual level with environmental clues such as ∼25 MJup brown dwarf with a ∼5 MJup companion at coplanarity of multi-planet systems or orbital alignment an orbital distance of 40 AU (Chauvin et al. 2004) and within a debris disk; enhanced metallicities or abundance 2M0441+2301 AabBab is a quadruple system comprising ratios relative to host stars (Oberg et al. 2011); or over- a low-mass star, two brown dwarfs, and a 10 MJup object all system orbital architecture. Similarly, the statistical in a hierarchical and distinctly non-planetary configura- properties of brown dwarfs and giant planets can be used tion (Todorov et al. 2010). to identify dominant formation channels: the separation From the radial velocity perspective, the distribu- distribution of objects formed through cloud fragmenta- tion of minimum masses is generally well-fit tion should resemble that of binary stars; disk instability with a decaying power law (Butler et al. 2006; Johnson and core accretion may result in a bimodal period distri- 2009; Lopez & Jenkins 2012) or exponential function bution for giant planets (Boley 2009); planet scattering (Jenkins et al. 2016) that tapers off beyond ∼10 MJup. to wide orbits should produce a rising mass function at This is evident in Figure 13, although inhomogeneous ra- low planet masses as opposed to a truncated mass distri- dial velocity detection biases which exclude lower-mass bution at the fragmentation limit for cloud fragmentation planets at wide separations are not taken into account. and disk instability; and the companion mass function The dominant formation channel for this population of and mass ratio distribution are expected to smoothly ex- close-in giant planets is thought to be core accretion plus tend from low-mass stars down to the fragmentation limit gas capture, in which growing cores reach a critical mass if a common formation channel in at play (Brandt et al. and undergo runaway gas accretion (e.g., Helled et al. 2014a; Reggiani et al. 2016). Testing these scenarios will 2013). require much larger sample sizes given the low occurrence The totality of evidence indicates that the decreasing rates uncovered in direct imaging surveys. brown dwarf companion mass function almost certainly 6. overlaps with the the rising giant planet mass function CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK in the 5–20 MJup mass range. No strict mass cutoff High-contrast imaging is still in its nascence. Ra- can therefore unambiguously divide giant planets from dial velocity, transit, and microlensing surveys have un- brown dwarfs, and many of the imaged companions be- ambiguously demonstrated that giant planets are much low 13 MJup listed in Table 1 probably originate from rarer than super-Earths and rocky planets at separations the dwindling brown dwarf companion mass function. .10 AU. In that light, the discovery of truly massive Another approach to separate these populations is to planets at tens, hundreds, and even thousands of AU consider formation channel: planets originate in disks with direct imaging is fortuitous, even if the overall oc- while brown dwarfs form like stars from the gravita- currence rate of this population is quite low. Each detec- tional collapse of molecular cloud cores. However, not tion technique has produced many micro paradigm shifts only are the relic signatures of formation difficult to over the past twenty years that disrupt and rearrange discern for individual discoveries, but objects spanning perceptions about the demographics and architectures of the planetary up to the stellar mass regimes may also planetary systems. Hot Jupiters, correlations with stellar form in large Toomre-unstable circumstellar disks at sep- mass and metallicity, the ubiquity of super-Earths, com- arations of tens to hundreds of AU (e.g., Durisen et al. pact systems of small planets, resonant configurations, 2007; Kratter & Lodato 2016). Any binary narrative orbital misalignments, the prevalence of habitable-zone based on origin in a disk versus a cloud core is there- Earth-sized planets, circumbinary planets, and feature- fore also problematic. Furthermore, both giant planets less clouds and hazes are an incomplete inventory within and brown dwarf companions may migrate, dynamically just a few AU (e.g., Winn & Fabrycky 2015). The most scatter, or undergo periodic Kozai-Lidov orbital oscil- important themes to emerge from direct imaging are that lations if a third body is present, further mixing these massive planets exist but are uncommon at wide separa- populations and complicating the interpretation of very tions (>10 AU), and at young ages the low-gravity atmo- low-mass companions uncovered with direct imaging. spheres of giant planets do not resemble those of older, The deuterium-burning limit at ≈13 MJup is gener- similar-temperature brown dwarfs. ally acknowledged as a nebulous, imperfect, and ulti- There are many clear directions forward in this mately artificial division between brown dwarfs and gi- field. Deeper contrasts and smaller inner working ant planets. Moreover, this boundary is not fixed and angles will probe richer portions of planetary mass- 24 and separation distributions. Thirty meter-class tele- Dupuy et al. 2009; Crepp et al. 2012a). High-contrast scopes with extreme adaptive optics systems will regu- imaging has a promising future and will play an ever- larly probe sub-Jovian masses at separations down to growing role in investigating the architecture, atmo- 5 AU. This next generation will uncover more plan- spheres, and origin of exoplanets. ets and enable a complete mapping of the evolution of giant planet atmospheres over time. Other fertile avenues for high-contrast imaging include precise mea- It is a pleasure to thank the referee, Rebecca Oppen- surements of atmospheric composition (Konopacky et al. heimer, as well as Lynne Hillenbrand, Dimitri Mawet, 2013; Barman et al. 2015), doppler imaging (Crossfield Sasha Hinkley, and Trent Dupuy for their thoughtful 2014; Crossfield et al. 2014), photometric monitoring comments and constructive feedback on this review. to map variability of rotationally-modulated features Michael Liu, Arthur Vigan, Christian Marois, Motohide (e.g., Apai et al. 2016), synergy with other detection Tamura, Ga¨el Chauvin, Andy Skemer, Adam Kraus, and methods (e.g., Lagrange et al. 2013; Sozzetti et al. 2013; Bruce Macintosh contributed helpful suggestions on past Montet et al. 2014; Clanton & Gaudi 2016), advances in and ongoing imaging surveys. Bruce Macintosh, Eric stellar age-dating at the individual and population lev- Nielsen, Andy Skemer, and Rapha¨el Galicher kindly pro- els, merging high-contrast imaging with high-resolution vided images for Figure 9. Trent Dupuy generously spectroscopy (Snellen et al. 2014; Snellen et al. 2015), shared his compilation of late-T and Y dwarfs used in surveying the companion mass function to sub-Jovian Figure 7. This research has made use of the Exoplanet masses, polarimetric observations of photospheric clouds Orbit Database, the at exo- (e.g., Marley et al. 2013; Jensen-Clem et al. 2016), planets.org, and the SpeX Prism Spectral Libraries main- statistical correlations with stellar host properties, tained by Adam Burgasser. NASA’s Astrophysics Data probing the earliest stages of protoplanet assembly System Bibliographic Services together with the VizieR (Kraus & Ireland 2012; Sallum et al. 2015a), astromet- catalogue access tool and SIMBAD database operated at ric orbit monitoring and constraints on dynamical his- CDS, Strasbourg, France, were invaluable resources for tories, and robust dynamical mass measurements to test this work. evolutionary models and probe initial conditions (e.g.,

REFERENCES Absil, O., & Mawet, D. 2009, Astron Astrophys Rev, 18, 317 Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B., Konopacky, Q. M., & Marois, C. Absil, O., Le Bouquin, J.-B., Berger, J.-P., et al. 2011, A&A, 535, 2011a, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, 65 A68 —. 2011b, The Astrophysical Journal, 735, L39 Absil, O., Milli, J., Mawet, D., et al. 2013, A&A, 559, L12 Basri, G., & Brown, M. E. 2006, Annual Review of Earth and Ahmic, M., Jayawardhana, R., Brandeker, A., et al. 2007, The Planetary Sciences, 34, 193 Astrophysical Journal, 671, 2074 Bate, M. R. 2009, Monthly Notices RAS, 392, 590 Allard, F., Homeier, D., & Freytag, B. 2012, Philosophical Bate, M. R., Bonnell, I. A., & Bromm, V. 2002, Monthly Notices Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical RAS, 332, L65 and Engineering Sciences, 370, 2765 Beichman, C., Gelino, C. R., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2013, ApJ, Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 764, 101 79 —. 2014, ApJ, 783, 68 Allers, K. N., Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Cushing, M. C. 2010, Bell, C. P. M., Mamajek, E. E., & Naylor, T. 2015, Monthly The Astrophysical Journal, 715, 561 Notices RAS, 454, 593 Amara, A., & Quanz, S. P. 2012, Monthly Notices RAS, 427, 948 Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Gatewood, G., et al. 2006, The Anderson, E., & Francis, C. 2012, Astronomy Letters, 38, 331 Astronomical Journal, 132, 2206 Andrews, S. M. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Benest, D., & Duvent, J. L. 1995, A&A, 299, 621 the . . . Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., Janson, M., K¨ohler, R., & Henning, Andrews, S. M., Rosenfeld, K. A., Kraus, A. L., & Wilner, D. J. T. 2011, A&A, 528, A134 2013, ApJ, 771, 129 Beust, H., Augereau, J.-C., Bonsor, A., et al. 2014, A&A, 561, Apai, D., Janson, M., Moro-Mart´ın, A., et al. 2008, The A43 Astrophysical Journal, 672, 1196 Beuzit, J.-L., Mouillet, D., Oppenheimer, B. R., & Monnier, J. D. Apai, D., Kasper, M., Skemer, A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 1 2007, Protostars and Planets V, 717 Artigau, E., Gagn´e, J., Faherty, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 806, 1 Beuzit, J.-L., S´egransan, D., Forveille, T., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, Aumann, H. H. 1985, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac., 97, 885 997 Aumann, H. H., Beichman, C. A., Gillet, F. C., et al. 1984, Beuzit, J.-L., Feldt, M., Dohlen, K., et al. 2008, 7014, 701418 Astrophys. J., 278, L23 Biller, B., Allers, K., Liu, M., Close, L. M., & Dupuy, T. 2011, Backman, D., Marengo, M., & Stapelfeldt, K. 2009, The The Astrophysical Journal, 730, 39 Astrophysical . . . Biller, B., Artigau, E.,´ Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2008, Proc. SPIE, 7015, Bailey, J. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of 70156Q Australia, 31, e043 Biller, B., Lacour, S., Juh´asz, A., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Bailey, V., Meshkat, T., Reiter, M., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 753, L38 Journal, 780, L4 Biller, B. A., Close, L. M., Masciadri, E., et al. 2007, The Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2002, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 173, 143 A&A, 382, 563 Biller, B. A., Liu, M. C., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2010, The Baraffe, I., Chabrier, G., Barman, T. S., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, Astrophysical Journal, 720, L82 P. H. 2003, A&A, 402, 701 —. 2013, ApJ, 777, 160 Baraffe, I., Homeier, D., Allard, F., & Chabrier, G. 2015, arXiv, Biller, B. A., Males, J., Rodigas, T., et al. 2014, The 1503.04107v1 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 792, L22 Barenfeld, S. A., Bubar, E. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Young, P. A. Biller, B. A., Vos, J., Bonavita, M., et al. 2015a, The 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, 6 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 813, 1 Barman, T. S., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Marois, C. Biller, B. A., Liu, M. C., Rice, K., et al. 2015b, Monthly Notices 2015, ApJ, 804, 1 RAS, 450, 4446 25

Binks, A. S., & Jeffries, R. D. 2014, MNRAS Letters, 438, L11 Caceres, C., Hardy, A., Schreiber, M. R., et al. 2015, The Binks, A. S., Jeffries, R. D., & Maxted, P. F. L. 2015, Monthly Astrophysical Journal Letters, 806, 1 Notices RAS, 452, 173 Cantalloube, F., Mouillet, D., Mugnier, L. M., et al. 2015, A&A, Boccaletti, A., Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Galicher, R., & 582, A89 Chauvin, G. 2013, A&A, 551, L14 Cardoso, C. V., Mccaughrean, M. J., King, R. R., et al. 2009, in Boccaletti, A., Thalmann, C., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2015, AIP Conf. Proc 1094, 15th Cambridge Workshop on CoolStars, Nature, 526, 230 Stellar Systems and the Sun, ed. E. Stempels (Melville, NY: Bodenheimer, P., D’angelo, G., Lissauer, J. J., Fortney, J. J., & AIP),, 509 Saumon, D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 770, 120 Carson, J., Thalmann, C., Janson, M., et al. 2013, The Boley, A. C. 2009, ApJL, 695, L53 Astrophysical Journal, 763, L32 Boley, A. C., Payne, M. J., Corder, S., et al. 2012, The Carson, J. C., Eikenberry, S. S., Brandl, B. R., Wilson, J. C., & Astrophysical Journal, 750, L21 Hayward, T. L. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 1212 Bond, H. E., Gilliland, R. L., Schaefer, G. H., et al. 2015, ApJ, Carson, J. C., Eikenberry, S. S., Smith, J. J., & Cordes, J. M. 813, 1 2006, The Astronomical Journal, 132, 1146 Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., Rojo, P., et al. 2010, A&A, 512, A52 Chabrier, G. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 554, 1274 Bonnefoy, M., Lagrange, A.-M., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2011, A&A, Chabrier, G., Baraffe, I., Selsis, F., et al. 2007, Protostars and 1 Planets V, 623 Bonnefoy, M., Boccaletti, A., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2013, A&A, Chabrier, G., Johansen, A., Janson, M., & Rafikov, R. 2014, in 555, A107 Protostars and Planets VI, Henrik Beuther, Ralf S. Klessen, Bonnefoy, M., Currie, T., Marleau, G. D., et al. 2014a, A&A, 562, Cornelis P. Dullemond, and Thomas Henning (eds.), University A111 of Arizona Press, Tucson, 914 pp., p.619-642 Bonnefoy, M., Marleau, G. D., Galicher, R., et al. 2014b, A&A, Chauvin, G., Beust, H., Lagrange, A.-M., & Eggenberger, A. 567, L9 2011, A&A, 528, A8 Bonnefoy, M., Zurlo, A., Baudino, J. L., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Dumas, C., et al. 2004, A&A, 425, A58 L29 Bonnet-Bidaud, J. M., & Pantin, E. 2008, A&A, 489, 651 —. 2005a, A&A, 438, L25 Boss, A. P. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 551, L167 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Udry, S., et al. 2006, A&A, 456, Bowler, B. P., Andrews, S. M., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2015a, The 1165 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 805, 1 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2007, Bowler, B. P., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2015, The Astrophysical A&A, 475, 723 Journal Letters, 811, L30 Chauvin, G., Thomson, M., Dumas, C., et al. 2003, A&A, 404, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., & Cushing, M. C. 2010a, 157 The Astrophysical Journal, 723, 850 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Zuckerman, B., et al. 2005b, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Kraus, A. L., & Mann, A. W. 2014, A&A, 438, L29 ApJ, 784, 65 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Lacombe, F., et al. 2005c, A&A, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Kraus, A. L., Mann, A. W., & Ireland, 430, 1027 M. J. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 743, 148 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Bonavita, M., et al. 2010, A&A, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., & Dupuy, T. J. 2013, 509, A52 The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 55 Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., Beust, H., et al. 2012, A&A, 542, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., et al. 2012a, The A41 Astrophysical Journal, 753, 142 Chauvin, G., Vigan, A., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, Bowler, B. P., Liu, M. C., Shkolnik, E. L., & Tamura, M. 2012b, A127 The Astrophysical Journal, 756, 69 Cheetham, A., Hu´elamo, N., Lacour, S., de Gregorio-Monsalvo, I., —. 2015b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 216, 7 & Tuthill, P. 2015, Monthly Notices RAS Letters, 450, L1 Bowler, B. P., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010b, The Chiang, E., Kite, E., Kalas, P., Graham, J. R., & Clampin, M. Astrophysical Journal, 709, 396 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 734 Bowler, B. P., Shkolnik, E. L., Liu, M. C., et al. 2015c, The Chun, M., Toomey, D., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2008, SPIE, 7015, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 806, 62 Cieza, L. A., Padgett, D. L., Allen, L. E., et al. 2009, ApJL, 696, Brandner, W., Zinnecker, H., Alcal´a, J. M., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, L84 950 Clanton, C., & Gaudi, B. S. 2016, ApJ, 819, 1 Brandt, T. D., McElwain, M. W., Turner, E. L., et al. 2013, The Claudi, R. U., Turatto, M., Gratton, R. G., et al. 2008, in SPIE Astrophysical Journal, 764, 183 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. I. S. McLean —. 2014a, ApJ, 794, 159 & M. M. Casali (SPIE), 70143E Brandt, T. D., McElwain, M. W., Janson, M., et al. 2014b, In Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Kopon, D. A., et al. 2012, Adaptive Proc. SPIE, 9148, 1, 91849 Optics Systems III. Proceedings of the SPIE, 8447 Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., McElwain, M. W., et al. 2014c, Close, L. M., Males, J. R., Morzinski, K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 774, 94 ApJ, 786, 1 Close, L. M., Follette, K. B., Males, J. R., et al. 2014, The Brown, R. A. 2015, ApJ, 805, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 781, L30 Bryan, M. L., Knutson, H. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2016, ApJ, Crepp, J. R., Gonzales, E. J., Bechter, E. B., et al. 2016, arXiv, 821, 1 arXiv:1604.00398 Buenzli, E., Thalmann, C., Vigan, A., et al. 2010, A&A, 524, L1 Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2014, ApJ, Burgasser, A. J. 2014, arXiv, 1406.4887v1 781, 29 Burgasser, A. J., Reid, I. N., Siegler, N., et al. 2007, Protostars —. 2013a, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 1 and Planets V, 427 Crepp, J. R., Pueyo, L., Brenner, D., et al. 2011, The Burgasser, A. J., Simcoe, R. A., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, 132 Astrophysical Journal, 725, 1405 Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2012a, The Burningham, B., Leggett, S. K., Homeier, D., et al. 2011, Astrophysical Journal, 751, 97 Monthly Notices RAS, 414, 3590 Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012b, The Burrows, A., Hubbard, W. B., Lunine, J. I., & Liebert, J. 2001, Astrophysical Journal, 761, 39 Reviews of Modern Physics, 73, 719 —. 2013b, ApJ, 771, 46 Burrows, A., & Liebert, J. 1993, Reviews of Modern Physics, 65, Crepp, J. R., Rice, E. L., Veicht, A., et al. 2015, The 301 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 798, L43 Burrows, A., Marley, M., Hubbard, W. B., et al. 1997, Crossfield, I. J. M. 2014, A&A, 566, A130 Astrophysical Journal, 491, 856 —. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Butler, R. P., Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2006, The 127, 941 Astrophysical Journal, 646, 505 Crossfield, I. J. M., Biller, B., Schlieder, J. E., et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 654 26

Cumming, A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2008, PASP, Ehrenreich, D., Lagrange, A.-M., Montagnier, G., et al. 2010, 120, 531 A&A, 523, A73 Currie, T., Bailey, V., Fabrycky, D., et al. 2010, The Eiroa, C., Marshall, J. P., Mora, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A11 Astrophysical Journal, 721, L177 Els, S. G., Sterzik, M. F., Marchis, F., et al. 2001, A&A, 370, L1 Currie, T., Burrows, A., & Daemgen, S. 2014a, ApJ, 787, 104 Espaillat, C., Muzerolle, J., Najita, J., et al. 2014, Protostars and Currie, T., Cloutier, R., Brittain, S., et al. 2015, The Planets VI, 497 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 814, 1 Esposito, S., Mesa, D., Skemer, A., et al. 2012, A&A, 549, A52 Currie, T., Cloutier, R., Debes, J. H., Kenyon, S. J., & Kaisler, Fabrycky, D. C., & Murray-Clay, R. A. 2010, The Astrophysical D. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 777, L6 Journal, 710, 1408 Currie, T., Daemgen, S., Debes, J., et al. 2014b, The Faherty, J. K., Rice, E. L., Cruz, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., & Astrophysical Journal, 780, L30 N´u˜nez, A. 2012, The Astronomical Journal, 145, 2 Currie, T., Fukagawa, M., Thalmann, C., Matsumura, S., & Farihi, J., Bond, H. E., Dufour, P., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices Plavchan, P. 2012a, The Astrophysical Journal, 755, L34 RAS, 430, 652 Currie, T., Thalmann, C., Matsumura, S., et al. 2011a, The Feigelson, E. D., Lawson, W. A., & Stark, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 736, L33 Astronomical . . . Currie, T., Burrows, A., Itoh, Y., et al. 2011b, The Astrophysical Fergus, R., Hogg, D. W., Oppenheimer, R., Brenner, D., & Journal, 729, 128 Pueyo, L. 2014, ApJ, 794, 161 Currie, T., Debes, J., Rodigas, T. J., et al. 2012b, The Filippazzo, J. C., Rice, E. L., Faherty, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 810, 1 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 760, L32 Fitzgerald, M. P., Kalas, P. G., & Graham, J. R. 2009, The Currie, T., Burrows, A., Girard, J. H., et al. 2014c, ApJ, 795, 133 Astrophysical Journal, 706, L41 Currie, T., Muto, T., Kudo, T., et al. 2014d, The Astrophysical Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., & Lodders, K. 2008, Journal Letters, 796, L30 The Astrophysical Journal, 683, 1104 Cushing, M. C., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., et al. 2008, The Fortney, J. J., & Nettelmann, N. 2009, Space Sci Rev, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 678, 1372 Forveille, T., S gransan, D., Delorme, P., et al. 2004, A&A, 427, Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., et al. 2011, The L1 Astrophysical Journal, 743, 50 Fuhrmann, K., & Chini, R. 2015, ApJ, 806, 1 Daemgen, S., Bonavita, M., Jayawardhana, R., LaFreniere, D., & Fukagawa, M., Itoh, Y., Tamura, M., et al. 2009, The Janson, M. 2015, ApJ, 799, 155 Astrophysical Journal, 696, L1 Davies, R., & Kasper, M. 2012, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., 50, Gagn´e, J., Burgasser, A. J., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2015a, The 305 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 808, 1 Dawson, R. I., Murray-Clay, R. A., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2011, The Gagn´e, J., LaFreniere, D., Doyon, R., Malo, L., & Artigau, E. Astrophysical Journal, 743, L17 2014, ApJ, 783, 121 De Rosa, R. J., Nielsen, E. L., Blunt, S. C., et al. 2015, The —. 2015b, ApJ, 798, 73 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 814, 1 Gagn´e, J., Faherty, J. K., Cruz, K. L., et al. 2015c, The De Rosa, R. J., Rameau, J., Patience, J., et al. 2016, arXiv, Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 219, 1 1604.01411v1 Gaidos, E., Mann, A. W., L´epine, S., et al. 2014, Monthly Notices Deacon, N. R., Schlieder, J. E., & Murphy, S. J. 2016, Monthly RAS, 443, 2561 Notices RAS, 457, 3191 Galicher, R., Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., & Deacon, N. R., Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, Konopacky, Q. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 739, L41 119 Galicher, R., Rameau, J., Bonnefoy, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 565, L4 Dekany, R., Roberts, J., Burruss, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 776, 130 Garcia, E. V., Dupuy, T. J., Allers, K. N., Liu, M. C., & Deacon, Delorme, P., Lagrange, A. M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2012, A&A, N. R. 2015, ApJ, 804, 1 539, A72 Garufi, A., Quanz, S. P., Schmid, H. M., et al. 2016, arXiv, Delorme, P., Gagn´e, J., Girard, J. H., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, L5 1601.04983v1 Dent, W. R. F., Walker, H. J., Holland, W. S., & Greaves, J. S. Gauza, B., Bejar, V. J. S., P´erez-Garrido, A., et al. 2015, The 2000, Monthly Notices RAS, 314, 702 Astrophysical Journal, 804, 96 Dent, W. R. F., Wyatt, M. C., Roberge, A., et al. 2014, Science, Geißler, K., Kellner, S., Brandner, W., et al. 2007, A&A, 461, 665 1490 Ginski, C., Mugrauer, M., Seeliger, M., et al. 2016, Monthly Desidera, S., Covino, E., Messina, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 573, A126 Notices RAS, 457, 2173 Dohlen, K., Langlois, M., Saisse, M., et al. 2008, in SPIE Gizis, J. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 575, 484 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. I. S. McLean Goldman, B., Marsat, S., Henning, T., Clemens, C., & Greiner, J. & M. M. Casali, Lab. d’Astrophysique de Marseille, CNRS, 2010, Monthly Notices RAS, 405, 1140 Univ. de Provence (France) (SPIE), 70143L Golimowski, D. A., Leggett, S. K., Marley, M. S., et al. 2004a, Dong, R., Fung, J., & Chiang, E. 2016a, arXiv, 1602.04814v1 The Astronomical Journal, 127, 3516 Dong, R., Hall, C., Rice, K., & Chiang, E. 2015, The Golimowski, D. A., Henry, T. J., Krist, J. E., et al. 2004b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 812, L32 Astronomical Journal, 128, 1733 Dong, R., Zhu, Z., Fung, J., et al. 2016b, The Astrophysical Gonzalez, C. A. G., Absil, O., Absil, P. A., et al. 2016, arXiv, Journal Letters, 816, L12 1602.08381v1 Dou, J., Ren, D., Zhao, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, 1 Go´zdziewski, K., & Migaszewski, C. 2009, Monthly Notices RAS Duchˆene, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 709, L114 Letters, 397, L16 Duchˆene, G., & Kraus, A. 2013, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., —. 2014, Monthly Notices RAS, 440, 3140 51, 269 Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Moriarty-Schieven, G., et al. 1998, Dupuy, T. J., Kratter, K. M., Kraus, A. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 817, The Astrophysical Journal, 506, L133 1 Greaves, J. S., Holland, W. S., Wyatt, M. C., et al. 2005, ApJL, Dupuy, T. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2013, Science, 341, 1492 619, L187 Dupuy, T. J., & Liu, M. C. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 733, Greco, J. P., & Brandt, T. D. 2016, arXiv, 1602.00691v1 122 Greco, J. P., & Burrows, A. 2015, ApJ, 808, 1 —. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement, 201, 19 Guyon, O. 2003, A&A, 404, 379 Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Ireland, M. J. 2009, The Guyon, O., Pluzhnik, E. A., Galicher, R., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 692, 729 Astrophysical Journal, 622, 744 —. 2014, ApJ, 790, 133 Guyon, O., Pluzhnik, E. A., Kuchner, M. J., Collins, B., & Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., & Leggett, S. K. 2015a, ApJ, 803, 1 Ridgway, S. T. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Dupuy, T. J., Liu, M. C., Leggett, S. K., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 805, 1 Series, 167, 81 Durisen, R. H., Boss, A. P., Mayer, L., et al. 2007, in Protostars Hagelberg, J., S´egransan, D., Udry, S., & Wildi, F. 2016, Monthly and Planets V, e. B. Reipurth, D. Jewitt, & K. Keil (Tucson, Notices RAS, 455, 2178 AZ: Univ. Arizona Press), 607 Han, E., Wang, S. X., Wright, J. T., et al. 2014, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 827 27

Hashimoto, J., Tamura, M., Muto, T., et al. 2011, The Janson, M., Brandner, W., Henning, T., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 729, L17 Astronomical Journal, 133, 2442 Hatzes, A. P., Cochran, W. D., McArthur, B., et al. 2000, The Janson, M., Apai, D., Zechmeister, M., et al. 2009, Monthly Astrophysical Journal, 544, L145 Notices RAS, 399, 377 Hayward, T. L., Biller, B. A., Liu, M. C., et al. 2014, Publications Janson, M., Carson, J., Thalmann, C., et al. 2011b, ApJ, 728, 85 of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 126, 1112 Janson, M., Brandt, T. D., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2013b, The Heap, S. R., Lindler, D. J., Lanz, T. M., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 778, L4 Astrophysical Journal, 539, 435 Janson, M., Brandt, T. D., Moro-Mart´ın, A., et al. 2013c, ApJ, Heinze, A. N., Hinz, P. M., Kenworthy, M., et al. 2010a, The 773, 73 Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1570 Janson, M., Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., et al. 2014, The Heinze, A. N., Hinz, P. M., Kenworthy, M., Miller, D., & Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 214, 17 Sivanandam, S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 688, 583 Jeffries, R. D. 2014, EAS Publications Series, 65, 289 Heinze, A. N., Hinz, P. M., Sivanandam, S., et al. 2010b, The Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Biller, B., et al. 2010, A&A, 515, Astrophysical Journal, 714, 1551 A17 Helled, R., Bodenheimer, P., Podolak, M., et al. 2013, in Jenkins, J. S., Jones, H. R. A., Tuomi, M., et al. 2016, arXiv, Protostars and Planets VI, ed. H. Beuther et al. (Tucson, AZ: 1603.09391v1 Univ. Arizona Press), 643 Jensen-Clem, R., Millar-Blanchaer, M., Mawet, D., et al. 2016, Helling, C., & Casewell, S. 2014, Astron Astrophys Rev, 22, 80 ApJ, 820, 1 Helling, C., Woitke, P., Rimmer, P., et al. 2014, Life, 4, 142 Jilkova, L., & Zwart, S. P. 2015, Monthly Notices RAS, 451, 804 Helling, C., Ackerman, A., Allard, F., et al. 2008, Monthly Johnson, J. A. 2009, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Notices RAS, 391, 1854 the Pacific, 121, 309 Henry, T. J., & McCarthy, D. W. J. 1990, Astrophysical Journal, Johnson, J. A., Aller, K. M., Howard, A. W., & Crepp, J. R. 350, 334 2010, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Herczeg, G. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2015, The Astrophysical 122, 905 Journal, 808, 23 Johnson, J. A., Butler, R. P., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2007, The Hinkley, S., Oppenheimer, B. R., Soummer, R., et al. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 670, 833 Astrophysical Journal, 654, 633 Jones, J., White, R. J., Quinn, S., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Hinkley, S., Oppenheimer, B. R., Brenner, D., et al. 2010, The Journal Letters, 822, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 712, 421 Jovanovic, N., Martinache, F., Guyon, O., et al. 2015, Hinkley, S., Oppenheimer, B. R., Zimmerman, N., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Pacific, 127, 890 Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 74 Kalas, P., Graham, J., Chiang, E., & Fitzgerald, M. 2008a, Hinkley, S., Pueyo, L., Faherty, J. K., et al. 2013, ApJ, 779, 153 Science Express Hinkley, S., Bowler, B. P., Vigan, A., et al. 2015a, The Kalas, P., Graham, J. R., & Clampin, M. 2005, Nature, 435, 1067 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 805, 1 Kalas, P., Graham, J. R., Fitzgerald, M. P., & Clampin, M. 2013, Hinkley, S., Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., et al. 2015b, The ApJ, 775, 56 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 806, 1 Kalas, P., & Jewitt, D. 1995, Astronomical Journal v.110, 110, Hinz, P. M., Heinze, A. N., Sivanandam, S., et al. 2006, ApJ, 653, 794 1486 Kalas, P., Graham, J. R., Chiang, E., et al. 2008b, Science, 322, Hinz, P. M., Rodigas, T. J., Kenworthy, M. A., et al. 2010, The 1345 Astrophysical Journal, 716, 417 Kalas, P. G., Rajan, A., Wang, J. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 814, 1 Howard, A. W., Johnson, J. A., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2010, The Kasper, M., Apai, D., Janson, M., & Brandner, W. 2007, A&A, Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1467 472, 321 Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Bryson, S. T., et al. 2012, The Kellogg, K., Metchev, S., Gagn´e, J., & Faherty, J. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 201, 15 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 821, 1 Howard, A. W., Marcy, G. W., Fischer, D. A., et al. 2014, ApJ, Kennedy, G. M., & Wyatt, M. C. 2011, Monthly Notices RAS, 794, 51 412, 2137 Huby, E., Perrin, G., Marchis, F., et al. 2012, A&A, 541, A55 Kenworthy, M. A., Codona, J. L., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, Hu´elamo, N., Lacour, S., Tuthill, P., et al. 2011, A&A, 528, L7 660, 762 Hung, L.-W., Duchene, G., Arriaga, P., et al. 2015, The Kenworthy, M. A., Mamajek, E. E., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 815, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 697, 1928 Ingraham, P., Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., et al. 2014, The Kenworthy, M. A., Meshkat, T., Quanz, S. P., et al. 2013, ApJ, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 794, L15 764, 7 Ireland, M. J., Kraus, A., Martinache, F., Law, N., & Kenyon, S. J., & Bromley, B. C. 2004, The Astronomical Journal Hillenbrand, L. A. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 726, 113 Kenyon, S. J., Currie, T., & Bromley, B. C. 2014, ApJ, 786, 70 Ireland, M. J., & Kraus, A. L. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, Kirkpatrick, J. D., Gelino, C. R., Cushing, M. C., et al. 2012, The 678, L59 Astrophysical Journal, 753, 156 —. 2014, IAU, 8, 199 Kiss, L. L., Mo´or, A., Szalai, T., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices Irwin, A. W., Fletcher, J. M., Yang, S. L. S., Walker, G. A. H., & RAS, 411, 117 Goodenough, C. 1992, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 104, Knutson, H. A., Fulton, B. J., Montet, B. T., et al. 2014, ApJ, 489 785, 126 Isella, A., Chandler, C. J., Carpenter, J. M., P´erez, L. M., & Konopacky, Q. M., Barman, T. S., Macintosh, B. A., & Marois, Ricci, L. 2014, ApJ, 788, 129 C. 2013, Science, 339, 1398 Itoh, Y., Oasa, Y., & Fukagawa, M. 2006, The Astrophysical Konopacky, Q. M., Marois, C., Macintosh, B. A., et al. 2016, Journal arXiv, 1604.08157v1 Itoh, Y., Hayashi, M., Tamura, M., et al. 2005, The Astrophysical Kratter, K. M., & Lodato, G. 2016, arXiv, 1603.01280v1 Journal, 620, 984 Kraus, A. L., Andrews, S. M., Bowler, B. P., et al. 2015, The Itoh, Y., Tamura, M., Hayashi, M., et al. 2008, Publications of Astrophysical Journal, 798, L23 the Astronomical Society of Japan, 60, 209 Kraus, A. L., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2012, The Astrophysical Janson, M., Bonavita, M., Klahr, H., et al. 2011a, The Journal, 757, 141 Astrophysical Journal, 736, 89 Kraus, A. L., & Ireland, M. J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, Janson, M., Carson, J. C., Lafreni`ere, D., et al. 2012, The 745, 5 Astrophysical Journal, 747, 116 Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Cieza, L. A., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 781, Janson, M., LaFreniere, D., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2013a, ApJ, 20 773, 170 Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Hillenbrand, L. A., & Martinache, F. Janson, M., Quanz, S. P., Carson, J. C., et al. 2015, A&A, 574, 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 745, 19 A120 Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Huber, D., Mann, A. W., & Dupuy, Janson, M., Reffert, S., Brandner, W., et al. 2008, A&A, 488, 771 T. J. 2016, arXiv, 1604.05744v1 28

Kraus, A. L., Ireland, M. J., Martinache, F., & Lloyd, J. P. 2008, Lowrance, P. J., Schneider, G., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 679, 762 The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 390 Kraus, A. L., Shkolnik, E. L., Allers, K. N., & Liu, M. C. 2014b, Lowrance, P. J., Becklin, E. E., Schneider, G., et al. 2005, The AJ, 147, 146 Astronomical Journal, 130, 1845 Kraus, A. L., White, R. J., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2005, ApJ, 633, Lucas, P. W., Roche, P. F., Allard, F., & Hauschildt, P. H. 2001, 452 Monthly Notices RAS, 326, 695 Krivov, A. V. 2010, Research in Astron. Astrophys., 383 Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., & Bochanski, J. J. 2011, The Kuchner, M. J., & Brown, M. E. 2000, Publications of the Astrophysical Journal, 730, L9 Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 112, 827 Luhman, K. L., Burgasser, A. J., Labb´e, I., et al. 2012, The Kumar, S. S. 1963, Astrophysical Journal, 137, 1121 Astrophysical Journal, 744, 135 Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Ishii, M., et al. 2011, The Luhman, K. L., & Jayawardhana, R. 2002, The Astrophysical Astronomical Journal, 141, 119 Journal, 566, 1132 Kuzuhara, M., Tamura, M., Kudo, T., et al. 2013, The Luhman, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., Allen, P. R., & Cruz, K. L. Astrophysical Journal, 774, 11 2009a, The Astrophysical Journal, 703, 399 Lachapelle, F.-R., LaFreniere, D., Gagn´e, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, Luhman, K. L., Mamajek, E. E., Allen, P. R., Muench, A. A., & 802, 1 Finkbeiner, D. P. 2009b, The Astrophysical Journal, 691, 1265 Lacour, S., Biller, B., Cheetham, A., et al. 2015, arXiv, Luhman, K. L., Mcleod, K. K., & Goldenson, N. 2005, The 1511.09390v1 Astrophysical Journal, 623, 1141 Lafreni`ere, D., Jayawardhana, R., & van Kerkwijk, M. H. 2008, Luhman, K. L., Wilson, J. C., Brandner, W., et al. 2006, The The Astrophysical Journal, 689, L153 Astrophysical Journal, 649, 894 —. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 497 Luhman, K. L., Patten, B. M., Marengo, M., et al. 2007, The Lafreni`ere, D., Jayawardhana, R., van Kerkwijk, M. H., Astrophysical Journal, 654, 570 Brandeker, A., & Janson, M. 2014, ApJ, 785, 47 Macintosh, B., Graham, J. R., Ingraham, P., et al. 2014, Lafreni`ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., & Barman, T. 2009, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111, 12661 Astrophysical Journal, 694, L148 Macintosh, B., Graham, J. R., Barman, T., et al. 2015, Science Lafreni`ere, D., Marois, C., Doyon, R., Nadeau, D., & Artigau, E.´ Macintosh, B. A., Becklin, E. E., Kaisler, D., Konopacky, Q., & 2007a, The Astrophysical Journal, 660, 770 Zuckerman, B. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 594, 538 Lafreni`ere, D., Doyon, R., Marois, C., et al. 2007b, The Macintosh, B. A., Max, C., Zuckerman, B., et al. 2001, Young Astrophysical Journal, 670, 1367 Stars Near Earth: Progress and Prospects, 244, 309 Lagrange, A.-M. 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Madhusudhan, N., Knutson, H., Fortney, J., & Barman, T. 2014, Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, arXiv, 1402.1169v1 372, 20130090 Maire, A. L., Boccaletti, A., Rameau, J., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, Lagrange, A.-M., Beust, H., Udry, S., Chauvin, G., & Mayor, M. A126 2006, A&A, 459, 955 Maire, A. L., Skemer, A. J., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2015a, A&A, 576, Lagrange, A.-M., Meunier, N., Chauvin, G., et al. 2013, A&A, A133 559, A83 —. 2015b, A&A, 579, C2 Lagrange, A.-M., Gratadour, D., Chauvin, G., et al. 2009a, A&A, Maire, A. L., Bonnefoy, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, 493, L21 A56 Lagrange, A.-M., Kasper, M., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2009b, A&A, Males, J. R., Close, L. M., Morzinski, K. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 506, 927 786, 32 Lagrange, A.-M., Bonnefoy, M., Chauvin, G., et al. 2010, Science, Malo, L., Artigau, E., Doyon, R., et al. 2014, ApJ, 788, 81 329, 57 Malo, L., Doyon, R., Lafreni`ere, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 762, 88 Lagrange, A.-M., Langlois, M., Gratton, R., et al. 2016, A&A, Mamajek, E. E. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, L20 586, L8 —. 2016, In Young Stars & Planets Near the Sun, Proceedings of Langlois, M., Dohlen, K., Vigan, A., et al. 2014, in SPIE the International Astronomical Union, IAU Symposium, 314, 21 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. S. K. Ramsay, Mamajek, E. E., & Bell, C. P. M. 2014, Monthly Notices RAS, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami (SPIE), 91471R 445, 2169 Larwood, J. D., & Kalas, P. G. 2001, MNRAS, 323, 402 Mamajek, E. E., Bartlett, J. L., Seifahrt, A., et al. 2013, The Leconte, J., Soummer, R., Hinkley, S., et al. 2010, The Astronomical Journal, 146, 154 Astrophysical Journal, 716, 1551 Marengo, M., Megeath, S. T., Fazio, G. G., et al. 2006, The Lee, J.-M., Heng, K., & Irwin, P. G. J. 2013, ApJ, 778, 97 Astrophysical Journal, 647, 1437 L´epine, S., & Simon, M. 2009, The Astronomical Journal, 137, Marengo, M., Stapelfeldt, K., Werner, M. W., et al. 2009, The 3632 Astrophysical Journal, 700, 1647 Line, M. R., Fortney, J. J., Marley, M. S., & Sorahana, S. 2014, Marleau, G. D., & Cumming, A. 2013, Monthly Notices RAS, ApJ, 793, 33 437, 1378 Liu, M. C. 2004, Science, 305, 1442 Marley, M. S., Ackerman, A. S., Cuzzi, J. N., & Kitzmann, D. Liu, M. C., Dupuy, T. J., Bowler, B. P., Leggett, S. K., & Best, 2013, arXiv, astro-ph.EP W. M. J. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 758, 57 Marley, M. S., Fortney, J., Seager, S., & Barman, T. 2007a, Liu, M. C., Fischer, D. A., Graham, J. R., et al. 2002, The Protostars and Planets V, 733 Astrophysical Journal, 571, 519 Marley, M. S., Fortney, J. J., Hubickyj, O., Bodenheimer, P., & Liu, M. C., Wahhaj, Z., Biller, B. A., et al. 2010, SPIE, 7736, Lissauer, J. J. 2007b, The Astrophysical Journal, 655, 541 77361K Marley, M. S., & Robinson, T. D. 2015, Annu. Rev. Astro. Liu, M. C., Delorme, P., Dupuy, T. J., et al. 2011, The Astrophys., 53, 279 Astrophysical Journal, 740, 108 Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Cushing, M., et al. 2012, The Liu, M. C., Magnier, E. A., Deacon, N. R., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 754, 135 Astrophysical Journal, 777, L20 Marois, C., Correia, C., Galicher, R., et al. 2014, in SPIE Lodato, G., Delgado-Donate, E., & Clarke, C. J. 2005, Monthly Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. E. Marchetti, Notices RAS Letters, 364, L91 L. M. Close, & J.-P. Veran (SPIE), 91480U Looper, D. L., Mohanty, S., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2010, The Marois, C., Lafreni`ere, D., Doyon, R., Macintosh, B., & Nadeau, Astrophysical Journal, 714, 45 D. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 641, 556 Lopez, S., & Jenkins, J. S. 2012, ApJ, 756, 177 Marois, C., Macintosh, B., Barman, T., et al. 2008, Science, 322, Lovis, C., & Mayor, M. 2007, A&A, 472, 657 1348 Low, C., & Lynden-Bell, D. 1976, Royal Astronomical Society, Marois, C., Macintosh, B., & V´eran, J.-P. 2010a, Proc. SPIE, 176, 367 7736, 77361J Lowrance, P. J., McCarthy, C., Becklin, E. E., et al. 1999, The Marois, C., Zuckerman, B., Konopacky, Q. M., Macintosh, B., & Astrophysical Journal, 512, L69 Barman, T. 2010b, Nature, 468, 1080 29

Marshall, J. P., Moro-Martin, A., Eiroa, C., et al. 2014, A&A, Mugrauer, M., & Neuh¨auser, R. 2005, Monthly Notices RAS 565, A15 Letters, 361, L15 Martinache, F., Guyon, O., Jovanovic, N., et al. 2014, Mugrauer, M., Neuh User, R., Guenther, E. W., et al. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Pacific, 126, 565 A&A, 417, 1031 Masciadri, E., Mundt, R., Henning, T., Alvarez, C., & barrado y Muto, T., Grady, C. A., Hashimoto, J., et al. 2012, The Navascu´es, D. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 625, 1004 Astrophysical Journal, 748, L22 Matthews, B. C., Krivov, A. V., Wyatt, M. C., Bryden, G., & Muzic, K., Scholz, A., Geers, V. C., & Jayawardhana, R. 2015, Eiroa, C. 2014a, in Protostars and Planets VI, Henrik Beuther, ApJ, 810, 1 Ralf S. Klessen, Cornelis P. Dullemond, and Thomas Henning Nakajima, T., Durrance, S. T., Golimowski, D. A., & Kulkarni, (eds.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 521 S. R. 1994, The Astrophysical Journal, 428, 797 Matthews, C. T., Crepp, J. R., Skemer, A., et al. 2014b, The Nakajima, T., Morino, J.-I., Tsuji, T., et al. 2005, Astronomische Astrophysical Journal Letters, 783, L25 Nachrichten, 326, 952 Mawet, D., Riaud, P., Absil, O., & Surdej, J. 2005, The Naud, M.-E., Artigau, E., Malo, L., et al. 2014, ApJ, 787, 5 Astrophysical Journal Neuh¨auser, R., Guenther, E. W., Alves, J., et al. 2003, Mawet, D., Serabyn, E., Liewer, K., et al. 2010, The Astronomische Nachrichten, 324, 535 Astrophysical Journal, 709, 53 Neuh¨auser, R., Mugrauer, M., Fukagawa, M., Torres, G., & Mawet, D., Absil, O., Montagnier, G., et al. 2012a, A&A, 544, Schmidt, T. 2007, A&A, 462, 777 A131 Ngo, H., Knutson, H. A., Hinkley, S., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 138 Mawet, D., Pueyo, L., Lawson, P., et al. 2012b, in SPIE Nielsen, E. L., & Close, L. M. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. M. C. 717, 878 Clampin, G. G. Fazio, H. A. MacEwen, & J. M. Oschmann Nielsen, E. L., Close, L. M., Biller, B. A., Masciadri, E., & (SPIE), 844204 Lenzen, R. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 674, 466 Mawet, D., Milli, J., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2014, ApJ, 792, 97 Nielsen, E. L., Liu, M. C., Wahhaj, Z., et al. 2012, The Mawet, D., David, T., Bottom, M., et al. 2015, ApJ, 811, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 750, 53 Mayama, S., Hashimoto, J., Muto, T., et al. 2012, The —. 2013, ApJ, 776, 4 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 760, L26 —. 2014, ApJ, 794, 158 McCarthy, C., & Zuckerman, B. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, Norris, B., Schworer, G., Tuthill, P., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices 127, 2871 RAS, 447, 2894 Mccarthy, K., & Wilhelm, R. J. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, Oberg, K. I., Murray-Clay, R., & Bergin, E. A. 2011, The 148, 70 Astrophysical Journal, 743, L16 Mennesson, B., Serabyn, E., Hanot, C., et al. 2011, ApJ, 736, 14 Olofsson, J., Benisty, M., Le Bouquin, J.-B., et al. 2013, A&A, Meshkat, T., Bailey, V. P., Su, K. Y. L., et al. 2015a, ApJ, 800, 5 552, A4 Meshkat, T., Kenworthy, M. A., Quanz, S. P., & Amara, A. Olofsson, J., Samland, M., Avenhaus, H., et al. 2016, arXiv, 2013a, ApJ, 780, 17 1601.07861v1 Meshkat, T., Kenworthy, M. A., Reggiani, M., et al. 2015b, Oppenheimer, B. R., Golimowski, D. A., Kulkarni, S. R., et al. Monthly Notices RAS, 453, 2534 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 121, 2189 Meshkat, T., Bailey, V., Rameau, J., et al. 2013b, The Oppenheimer, B. R., & Hinkley, S. 2009, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophysical Journal, 775, L40 Astrophys., 47, 253 Meshkat, T., Bonnefoy, M., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2015c, Oppenheimer, B. R., Kulkarni, S. R., & Stauffer, J. R. 2000, Monthly Notices RAS, 453, 2379 Protostars and Planets IV (Book - Tucson: University of Metchev, S., Marois, C., & Zuckerman, B. 2009, The Arizona Press; eds Mannings, 1313 Astrophysical Journal, 705, L204 Oppenheimer, B. R., Digby, A. P., Newburgh, L., et al. 2004, in Metchev, S. A., & Hillenbrand, L. A. 2004, The Astrophysical Astronomical Telescopes and Instrumentation, ed. Journal, 617, 1330 D. Bonaccini Calia, B. L. Ellerbroek, & R. Ragazzoni (SPIE), —. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 651, 1166 433–442 —. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 181, 62 Oppenheimer, B. R., Baranec, C., Beichman, C., et al. 2013, The Metchev, S. A., Hillenbrand, L. A., & White, R. J. 2003, The Astrophysical Journal, 768, 24 Astrophysical Journal, 582, 1102 Owen, J. E. 2016, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Metchev, S. A., Heinze, A., Apai, D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 799, 154 Australia, 33, e005 Meyer, M. R., Carpenter, J. M., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2008, Owen, J. E., & Menou, K. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal ApJL, 673, L181 Letters, 819, 1 Millar-Blanchaer, M. A., Graham, J. R., Pueyo, L., et al. 2015, Ozernoy, L. M., Gorkavyi, N. N., Mather, J. C., & Taidakova, ApJ, 811, 1 T. A. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 537, L147 Milli, J., Lagrange, A.-M., Mawet, D., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A91 Patience, J., King, R. R., De Rosa, R. J., & Marois, C. 2010, Mohanty, S., Greaves, J., Mortlock, D., et al. 2013, ApJ, 773, 168 A&A, 517, A76 Molli`ere, P., & Mordasini, C. 2012, A&A, 547, A105 Pecaut, M. J., Mamajek, E. E., & Bubar, E. J. 2012, The Montet, B. T., Crepp, J. R., Johnson, J. A., Howard, A. W., & Astrophysical Journal, 746, 154 Marcy, G. W. 2014, ApJ, 781, 28 Perez, S., Dunhill, A., Casassus, S., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Montet, B. T., Bowler, B. P., Shkolnik, E. L., et al. 2015, The Journal Letters, 811, 1 Astrophysical Journal Letters, 813, 1 Perryman, M. 2011, The Exoplanet Handbook (Cambridge Moor, A., Szabo, G. M., Kiss, L. L., et al. 2013, Monthly Notices University Press) RAS, 1 Perryman, M., Hartman, J., Bakos, G. A.,´ & Lindegren, L. 2014, Mordasini, C. 2013, A&A, 558, A113 ApJ, 797, 14 Mordasini, C., Alibert, Y., Klahr, H., & Henning, T. 2012, A&A, Petr-Gotzens, M. G., Cuby, J. G., Smith, M. D., & Sterzik, M. F. 547, A111 2010, A&A, 522, A78 Moro-Martin, A., Wyatt, M. C., Malhotra, R., & Trilling, D. E. Pueyo, L., Crepp, J. R., Vasisht, G., et al. 2012, The 2008, The Solar System Beyond , 465 Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 199, 6 Moro-Martin, A., Marshall, J. P., Kennedy, G., et al. 2015, ApJ, Pueyo, L., Soummer, R., Hoffmann, J., et al. 2015, ApJ, 803, 31 801, 1 Quanz, S. P. 2015, Astrophys. Space Sci., 1 Morzinski, K. M., Close, L. M., Males, J. R., et al. 2014, in SPIE Quanz, S. P., Amara, A., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2015, ApJ, 807, 1 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. E. Marchetti, —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 766, L1 L. M. Close, & J.-P. Veran (SPIE), 914804 Quanz, S. P., Meyer, M. R., Kenworthy, M. A., et al. 2010, The Morzinski, K. M., Males, J. R., Skemer, A. J., et al. 2015, ApJ, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 722, L49 815, 1 Queloz, D., Mayor, M., Weber, L., et al. 2000, A&A, 354, 99 Mouillet, D., Larwood, J. D., Papaloizou, J. C. B., & Lagrange, Radigan, J., LaFreniere, D., Jayawardhana, R., & Artigau, E. A.-M. 1997, Monthly Notices RAS, 292, 896 2014, ApJ, 793, 75 30

Rajan, A., Barman, T., Soummer, R., et al. 2015, The Shkolnik, E. L., Anglada-Escud´e, G., Liu, M. C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 809, 1 Astrophysical Journal, 758, 56 Rameau, J., Chauvin, G., Lagrange, A.-M., et al. 2015, A&A Silk, J. 1977, Astrophysical Journal, 214, 152 —. 2013a, A&A, 553, A60 Skemer, A. J., & Close, L. M. 2011, ApJ, 730, 53 —. 2013b, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, L26 Skemer, A. J., Marley, M. S., Hinz, P. M., et al. 2014a, ApJ, 792, —. 2013c, The Astrophysical . . . , 772, L15 17 Rameau, J., Nielsen, E. L., De Rosa, R. J., et al. 2016, arXiv, Skemer, A. J., Hinz, P., Esposito, S., et al. 2014b, in SPIE 1604.05139v1 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. E. Marchetti, Rebolo, R., Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Madruga, S., et al. 1998, L. M. Close, & J.-P. Veran (SPIE), 91480L Science, 282, 1309 Skemer, A. J., Hinz, P., Montoya, M., et al. 2015, in SPIE Optical Reggiani, M., Quanz, S. P., Meyer, M. R., et al. 2014, The Engineering + Applications, ed. S. Shaklan (SPIE), 96051D Astrophysical Journal Letters, 792, L23 Skemer, A. J., Morley, C. V., Zimmerman, N. T., et al. 2016, Reggiani, M., Meyer, M. R., Chauvin, G., et al. 2016, A&A, 586, ApJ, 817, 1 A147 Smith, B. A., & Terrile, R. J. 1984, Science Reid, I. N., Cruz, K. L., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2008, The Snellen, I., de Kok, R., Birkby, J. L., et al. 2015, A&A, 576, A59 Astronomical Journal, 136, 1290 Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Reid, I. N., & Walkowicz, L. M. 2006, The Publications of the Nature, 508, 63 Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 118, 671 Soderblom, D. R. 2010, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., 48, 581 Riaz, B., & Mart´ın, E. L. 2011, A&A, 525, A10 Soderblom, D. R., Hillenbrand, L. A., Jeffries, R. D., Mamajek, Riaz, B., Mart´ın, E. L., Petr-Gotzens, M. G., & Monin, J.-L. E. E., & Naylor, T. 2014, . . . and Planets VI 2013, A&A, 559, A109 Song, I., Zuckerman, B., & Bessell, M. S. 2003, The Astrophysical Rice, E. L., Oppenheimer, R., Zimmerman, N., Roberts, Jr, L. C., Journal, 599, 342 & Hinkley, S. 2015, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Soummer, R. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 618, L161 the Pacific, 127, 479 Soummer, R., Hagan, J. B., Pueyo, L., et al. 2011, The Riedel, A. R., Finch, C. T., Henry, T. J., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 741, 55 Astronomical Journal, 147, 85 Soummer, R., Pueyo, L., & Larkin, J. 2012, The Astrophysical Rieke, G. H., Su, K. Y. L., Stansberry, J. A., et al. 2005, The Journal, 755, L28 Astrophysical Journal, 620, 1010 Sozzetti, A., Giacobbe, P., Lattanzi, M. G., et al. 2013, Monthly Roberts, L. C., Rice, E. L., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2012, The Notices RAS, 437, 497 Astronomical Journal, 144, 14 Spergel, D., Gehrels, N., Baltay, C., et al. 2015, arXiv, 1 Robinson, T. D., Stapelfeldt, K. R., & Marley, M. S. 2016, Spiegel, D. S., & Burrows, A. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 128, 1 745, 174 Rodigas, T. J., Follette, K. B., Weinberger, A., Close, L., & Spiegel, D. S., Burrows, A., & Milsom, J. A. 2011, The Hines, D. C. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 791, L37 Astrophysical Journal, 727, 57 Rodigas, T. J., Males, J. R., Hinz, P. M., Mamajek, E. E., & Stevenson, D. J. 1991, IN: Annual review of astronomy and Knox, R. P. 2011, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, 10 astrophysics. Vol. 29 (A92-18081 05-90). Palo Alto, 29, 163 Rodigas, T. J., Weinberger, A., Mamajek, E. E., et al. 2015, ApJ, Stolker, T., Dominik, C., Avenhaus, H., et al. 2016, arXiv, 811, 1 1603.00481v1 Rodigas, T. J., Arriagada, P., Faherty, J., et al. 2016, ApJ, 818, 1 Stone, J. M., Skemer, A. J., Kratter, K. M., et al. 2016, The Rodriguez, D. R., Bessell, M. S., Zuckerman, B., & Kastner, J. H. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 818, 1 2011a, The Astrophysical Journal, 727, 62 Stumpf, M. B., Brandner, W., Joergens, V., et al. 2010, The Rodriguez, D. R., Zuckerman, B., Kastner, J. H., et al. 2013, Astrophysical Journal, 724, 1 ApJ, 774, 101 Su, K., Rieke, G. H., & Misselt, K. A. 2005, The Astrophysical ... Rodriguez, D. R., Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., & Song, I. 2011b, Su, K. Y. L., Rieke, G. H., Malhotra, R., et al. 2013, ApJ, 763, The Astrophysical Journal, 732, L29 118 Rosotti, G. P., Juhasz, A., Booth, R. A., & Clarke, C. J. 2016, Sudol, J. J., & Haghighipour, N. 2012, ApJ, 755, 38 MNRAS, 1 Tamura, M. 2016, Proceedings of the Japan Academy. Ser. B: Rouan, D., Riaud, P., Boccaletti, A., Cl´enet, Y., & Labeyrie, A. Physical and Biological Sciences, 92, 45 2000, The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Tamura, M., SEEDS team, Usuda, T., Tamura, M., & Ishii, M. Pacific, 112, 1479 2009, in EXOPLANETS AND DISKS: THEIR FORMATION Ryu, T., Sato, B., Kuzuhara, M., et al. 2016, arXiv, 1603.02017v1 AND DIVERSITY: Proceedings of the International Sallum, S., Follette, K. B., Eisner, J. A., et al. 2015a, Nature, Conference, AA(National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 527, 342 Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588 motohide.tamuraatnao.ac.jp) (AIP), Sallum, S., Eisner, J. A., Close, L. M., et al. 2015b, ApJ, 801, 85 11–16 Santos, N. C., Mayor, M., Naef, D., et al. 2002, A&A, 392, 215 Tanner, A., Beichman, C., Akeson, R., et al. 2007, The Sartoretti, P., Brown, R. A., & Latham, D. W. 1998, Astronomy Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 119, 747 and . . . Tanner, A. M., Gelino, C. R., & Law, N. M. 2010, Publications of Saumon, D., & Marley, M. S. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 122, 1195 689, 1327 Terebey, S., van Buren, D., Matthews, K., & Padgett, D. L. 2000, Savransky, D. 2015, ApJ, 800, 100 The Astronomical Journal, 119, 2341 Schlieder, J. E., L´epine, S., & Simon, M. 2010, The Astronomical Terebey, S., van Buren, D., Padgett, D. L., Hancock, T., & Journal, 140, 119 Brundage, M. 1998, The Astrophysical Journal, 507, L71 —. 2012a, The Astronomical Journal, 143, 80 Thalmann, C., Schmid, H. M., Boccaletti, A., et al. 2008, in SPIE —. 2012b, The Astronomical Journal, 144, 109 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. I. S. McLean Schlieder, J. E., Skemer, A. J., Maire, A.-L., et al. 2016, ApJ, & M. M. Casali (SPIE), 70143F 818, 1 Thalmann, C., Carson, J., Janson, M., et al. 2009, The Schneider, A. C., Windsor, J., Cushing, M. C., Kirkpatrick, J. D., Astrophysical Journal, 707, L123 & Wright, E. L. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 822, 1 Thalmann, C., Grady, C. A., Goto, M., et al. 2010, The Schnupp, C., Bergfors, C., Brandner, W., et al. 2010, arXiv, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 718, L87 astro-ph.SR Thalmann, C., Usuda, T., Kenworthy, M., et al. 2011, The Scholz, A., Jayawardhana, R., Muzic, K., et al. 2012, ApJ, 756, 24 Astrophysical Journal, 732, L34 Scholz, R.-D. 2010, A&A, 515, A92 Thalmann, C., Desidera, S., Bonavita, M., et al. 2014, A&A, 572, Schroeder, D. J., Golimowski, D. A., Brukardt, R. A., et al. 2000, A91 The Astronomical . . . Thomas, S., Belikov, R., & Bendek, E. 2015, ApJ, 810, 1 Serabyn, E., Mawet, D., & Burruss, R. 2010, Nature, 464, 1018 Tinney, C. G., Faherty, J. K., Kirkpatrick, J. D., et al. 2014, ApJ, Shkolnik, E., Liu, M. C., & Reid, I. N. 2009, The Astrophysical 796, 39 Journal, 699, 649 31

Todorov, K., Luhman, K. L., & Mcleod, K. K. 2010, The Wilner, D. J., Holman, M. J., & Kuchner, M. J. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 714, L84 Astrophysical . . . Todorov, K. O., Line, M. R., Pineda, J. E., et al. 2015, arXiv, Winn, J. N., & Fabrycky, D. C. 2015, Annu. Rev. Astro. 1504.00217v3 Astrophys., 53, 409 Todorov, K. O., Luhman, K. L., Konopacky, Q. M., et al. 2014, Winters, J. G., Henry, T. J., Lurie, J. C., et al. 2015, The ApJ, 788, 40 Astronomical Journal, 149, 1 Tokovinin, A. 2014, The Astronomical Journal, 147, 87 W¨ollert, M., Brandner, W., Reffert, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, Torres, C. A. O., Quast, G. R., Melo, C. H. F., & Sterzik, M. F. A10 2008, in Young Nearby Loose Associations, ed. B. Reipurth Wright, J. T., Marcy, G. W., Howard, A. W., et al. 2012, ApJ, (San Francisco, CA: ASP), 757 753, 160 Torres, G. 1999, The Publications of the Astronomical Society of Wright, J. T., Fakhouri, O., Marcy, G. W., et al. 2011, the Pacific, 111, 169 Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 412 Traub, W. A., & Oppenheimer, B. R. 2010, Exoplanets, 111 Wu, Y.-L., Close, L. M., Males, J. R., et al. 2015, The Traub, W. A., Belikov, R., Guyon, O., et al. 2014, in SPIE Astrophysical Journal Letters, 807, 1 Astronomical Telescopes + Instrumentation, ed. J. M. Wyatt, M. C. 2008, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., 46, 339 Oschmann, M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen Wyatt, M. C., Holmes, E. K., Pi˜na, R. K., et al. 1999, ApJ, 527, (SPIE), 91430N 918 Trilling, D. E., Bryden, G., Beichman, C. A., et al. 2008, The Wyatt, M. C., Kennedy, G., Sibthorpe, B., et al. 2012, Monthly Astrophysical Journal, 674, 1086 Notices RAS, 424, 1206 Troy, M., Dekany, R. G., Brack, G., et al. 2000, Proc. SPIE Vol. Yamamoto, K., Matsuo, T., Shibai, H., et al. 2013, PASJ, 4007, 4007, 31 1306.3100 Vigan, A., Gry, C., Salter, G., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices RAS, Zahnle, K. J., & Marley, M. S. 2014, ApJ, 797, 41 454, 129 Zapatero Osorio, M. R., Rebolo, R., Bihain, G., et al. 2010, The Vigan, A., Langlois, M., Moutou, C., & Dohlen, K. 2008, A&A, Astrophysical Journal, 715, 1408 489, 1345 Zhou, Y., Apai, D., Schneider, G. H., Marley, M. S., & Showman, Vigan, A., Moutou, C., Langlois, M., et al. 2010, Monthly Notices A. P. 2016, ApJ, 818, 1 RAS, 407, 71 Zhou, Y., Herczeg, G. J., Kraus, A. L., Metchev, S., & Cruz, Vigan, A., Patience, J., Marois, C., et al. 2012, A&A, 544, 9 K. L. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 783, L17 Vigan, A., Bonnefoy, M., Ginski, C., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A55 Zhu, Z., Dong, R., Stone, J. M., & Rafikov, R. R. 2015, ApJ, 813, Wahhaj, Z., Koerner, D. W., Ressler, M. E., et al. 2003, The 1 Astrophysical Journal, 584, L27 Zimmerman, N., Brenner, D., Oppenheimer, B. R., et al. 2011, Wahhaj, Z., Liu, M. C., Biller, B. A., et al. 2011, The Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 123, 746 Astrophysical Journal, 729, 139 Zimmerman, N., Oppenheimer, B. R., Hinkley, S., et al. 2010, —. 2013a, ApJ, 779, 80 The Astrophysical Journal, 709, 733 Wahhaj, Z., Liu, M. C., Nielsen, E. L., et al. 2013b, The Zucker, S., Mazeh, T., Santos, N. C., Udry, S., & Mayor, M. 2003, Astrophysical Journal, 773, 179 A&A, 404, 775 Wahhaj, Z., Liu, M. C., Biller, B. A., et al. 2014, arXiv, —. 2004, A&A, 426, 695 1404.6525v1 Zuckerman, B. 2001, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., 39, 549 Wahhaj, Z., Cieza, L. A., Mawet, D., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A24 Zuckerman, B., Rhee, J. H., Song, I., & Bessell, M. S. 2011, The Wang, J., Xie, J.-W., Barclay, T., & Fischer, D. A. 2014, ApJ, Astrophysical Journal, 732, 61 783, 4 Zuckerman, B., & Song, I. 2004, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophys., White, R. J., & Ghez, A. M. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 42, 685 556, 265 Zuckerman, B., Song, I., Bessell, M. S., & Webb, R. A. 2001, The Williams, J. P., & Cieza, L. A. 2011, Annu. Rev. Astro. Astrophysical Journal, 562, L87 Astrophys., 49, 67 Zurlo, A., Vigan, A., Hagelberg, J., et al. 2013, A&A, 554, A21 Zurlo, A., Vigan, A., Galicher, R., et al. 2016, A&A, 587, A57 32

TABLE 1 Directly Imaged Planets and Planet Candidates with Inferred Masses .13 MJup

Name Massa Luminosity Age Sep. Sep. NIR SpT Orbital Pri. Pri. Mass References ′′ b (MJup) (log (LBol/L⊙)) (Myr) ( ) (AU) Motion? Mult. (M⊙)

Close-in Planets (<100 AU) 51Erib 2 ± 1 –5.6 ± 0.2 23 ± 3 0.45 13 T4.5–T6 Yes S 1.75 1, 2, 3 HD 95086 b 5 ± 2 –4.96 ± 0.10 17 ± 4 0.6 56 L/T: Yes S 1.6 4–7 HR 8799 b 5 ± 1 –5.1 ± 0.1 40 ± 5 1.7 68 ∼L/Tpec Yes S 1.5 8–11 LkCa 15 bc 6 ± 4 ··· 2 ± 1 0.08 20 ··· Yes S 1.0 12–15 HR 8799 c 7 ± 2 –4.7 ± 0.1 40 ± 5 0.95 38 ∼L/Tpec Yes S 1.5 8–11 HR 8799 d 7 ± 2 –4.7 ± 0.2 40 ± 5 0.62 24 ∼L7pec Yes S 1.5 8, 10, 11 HR 8799 e 7 ± 2 –4.7 ± 0.2 40 ± 5 0.38 14 ∼L7pec Yes S 1.5 10, 11, 16 β Pic b 12.7 ± 0.3 –3.78 ± 0.03 23 ± 3 0.4 9 L1 Yes S 1.6 17–20

Planetary-Mass Companions on Wide Orbits (>100 AU) WD 0806-661 b 7.5 ± 1.5 ··· 2000 ± 500 130 2500 Y? No S 2.0d 21–23 Ross 458 c 9 ± 3 –5.62 ± 0.03 150–800 102 1190 T8.5pec No B 0.6, 0.09 24–28 ROXs 42B b 10 ± 4 –3.07 ± 0.07 3 ± 2 1.2 140 L1 Yes B 0.89, 0.36 29–33 HD 106906 b 11 ± 2 –3.64 ± 0.08 13 ± 2 7.1 650 L2.5 No B 1.5 34, 35 GU Psc b 11 ± 2 –4.75 ± 0.15 120 ± 10 42 2000 T3.5 No S 0.30 36 CHXR 73 b 13 ± 6 –2.85 ± 0.14 2 ± 1 1.3 210 ≥M9.5 No S 0.30 37 SR12 C 13 ± 2 –2.87 ± 0.20 3 ± 2 8.7 1100 M9.0 No B 1.0, 0.5 31, 38 TYC 9486-927-1 b 12–15 ··· 10–45 217 6900 L3 No S 0.4 39, 40

Planetary-Mass Companions Orbiting Brown Dwarfs 2M1207–3932 b 5 ± 2 –4.68 ± 0.05 10 ± 3 0.8 41 L3 No S 0.024 41–44, 11 2M0441+2301 Bb 10 ± 2 –3.03 ± 0.09 2 ± 1 12/0.1 1800/15 L1 Yes B/S 0.2, 0.018 45–47

Candidate Planets and Companions Near the Deuterium-Burning Limit 1RXS J1609–2105 B 14 ± 2 –3.36 ± 0.09 11 ± 2 2.2 330 L2 No S 0.85 48–51 2M0103–5515 b 13–35 –3.49 ± 0.11 45 ± 4 1.7 84 ··· Yes B 0.19, 0.17 52, 53, 11 2M0122–2439 B 12–27 –4.19 ± 0.10 120 ± 10 1.4 52 L4 No S 0.4 53, 54 2M0219–3925 B 14 ± 1 –3.84 ± 0.05 45 ± 4 4.0 156 L4 No S 0.11 55 AB Pic B 13–30 –3.7 ± 0.2 45 ± 4 5.5 250 L0 No S 0.95 56, 57 CFBDSIR J1458+1013 B 5–20 –6.74 ± 0.19 1000–5000 0.1 2.6 Y0: Yes S 0.01–0.04 58, 59 DH Tau B 8–22 –2.71 ± 0.12 2 ± 1 2.3 340 M9.25 No S 0.5 60, 37, 15 Fomalhaut b .2 ··· 440 ± 40 13 119 ··· Yes S 1.92 61–64 FU Tau B ∼16 –2.60 2 ± 1 5.7 800 M9.25 No S 0.05 65 FW Tau b ∼10–100 ··· 2 ± 1 2.3 330 pec No B 0.3, 0.3 29, 31, 66 G196-3 B 12–25 –3.8 ± 0.2 20–85 16 400 L3 No S 0.43 67–69, 53, GJ 504 b 3–30 –6.13 ± 0.03 100–6500 2.5 44 T: Yes S 1.16 70–73 GJ 758 B 10–40 –6.1 ± 0.2 1000–6000 1.9 29 T8: Yes S 1.0 74–77 GSC 6214-210 B 15 ± 2 –3.1 ± 0.1 11 ± 2 2.2 320 M9.5 No S 0.9 50, 31, 78, HD 100546 b ∼10 ± 5 ··· 5–10 0.48 53 ··· No S 2.4 80–82 HD 100546 c <20 ··· 5–10 0.13 13 ··· No S 2.4 83 HD 203030 B 12–30 –4.64 ± 0.07 130–400 12 490 L7.5 Yes S 0.95 84, 85 HN Peg B 12–31 –4.77 ± 0.03 300 ± 200 43 800 T2.5 No S 1.07 85, 86 κ And b 12–66 –3.76 ± 0.06 40–300 1.1 55 L1 No S 2.8 87–90 LkCa 15 cc <10 ··· 2 ± 1 0.08 15 ··· Yes S 1.0 14, 15 LkCa 15 d <10 ··· 2 ± 1 0.09 18 ··· Yes S 1.0 14, 15 LP 261-75 B 12–26 –4.43 ± 0.09 100–200 14 450 L4.5 No S 0.22 91, 53 ROXs12 B 16 ± 4 ··· 8 ± 3 1.8 210 ··· Yes S 0.9 29, 33 SDSS2249+0044 A 12–60 –3.9 ± 0.3 20–300 0.3/49 17/2600 L3 No S/S ··· 92 SDSS2249+0044 B 8–52 –4.2 ± 0.3 20–300 0.3 17 L5 No S 0.03 92 VHS1256–1257 b 10–21 –5.05 ± 0.22 150–300 8.1 102 L7 No B 0.07, 0.07 93, 94 WISE J0146+4234 B 4–16 –7.01 ± 0.22 1000-10000 0.09 1 Y0 Yes S 0.005–0.016 95 WISE J1217+1626 B 5–20 –6.79 ± 0.18 1000–5000 0.08 8 Y0 No S 0.01–0.04 96

References. — (1) Macintosh et al. (2015); (2) De Rosa et al. (2015); (3) Mamajek & Bell (2014); (4) Rameau et al. (2013c); (5) Meshkat et al. (2013b (6) De Rosa et al. (2016); (7) Rameau et al. (2016); (8) Marois et al. (2008); (9) Rajan et al. (2015); (10) Bonnefoy et al. (2016); (11) Bell et al. (2015); (12) Kraus & Ireland (2012); (13) Ireland & Kraus (2014); (14) Sallum et al. (2015a); (15) Andrews et al. (2013); (16) Marois et al. (2010b); (17) Lagrange et (2009a); (18) Lagrange et al. (2010); (19) Morzinski et al. (2015); (20) Bonnefoy et al. (2013); (21) Luhman et al. (2011); (22) Luhman et al. (2012); (23) Rodriguez et al. 2011b; (24) Goldman et al. (2010); (25) Scholz (2010); (26) Burgasser et al. (2010); (27) Burningham et al. (2011); (28) Beuzit et (2004); (29) Kraus et al. (2014a); (30) Currie et al. (2014b); (31) Bowler et al. (2014); (32) Currie et al. (2014a); (33) Bryan et al., submitted; (34) Bailey et al. (2014); (35) Lagrange et al. (2016); (36) Naud et al. (2014); (37) Luhman et al. (2006); (38) Kuzuhara et al. (2011); (39) Deacon et al. (2016 (40) Reid et al. (2008); (41) Chauvin et al. (2004); (42) Chauvin et al. (2005a); (43) Barman et al. (2011b); (44) Allers & Liu (2013); (45) Todorov et (2010); (46) Todorov et al. (2014); (47) Bowler & Hillenbrand (2015); (48) Lafreni`ere et al. (2008); (49) Lafreni`ere et al. (2010); (50) Ireland et al. (2011 (51) Wu et al. (2015); (52) Delorme et al. (2013); (53) Bowler et al. (2013); (54) Hinkley et al. (2015a); (55) Artigau et al. (2015); (56) Chauvin et al. (2005b (57) Bonnefoy et al. (2010); (58) Liu et al. (2011); (59) Liu et al. (2012); (60) Itoh et al. (2005); (61) Kalas et al. (2008b); (62) Kalas et al. (2013); (63) Mamajek (2012); (64) Janson et al. (2012); (65) Luhman et al. (2009b); (66) White & Ghez (2001); (67) Rebolo et al. (1998); (68) Zapatero Osorio et (2010); (69) Gaidos et al. (2014); (70) Kuzuhara et al. (2013); (71) Janson et al. (2013b); (72) Fuhrmann & Chini (2015); (73) Skemer et al. (2016); (74) Thalmann et al. (2009); (75) Currie et al. (2010); (76) Janson et al. (2011b); (77) Vigan et al. (2016); (78) Bowler et al. (2011); (79) Lachapelle et (2015); (80) Quanz et al. (2013); (81) Currie et al. (2014d); (82) Quanz et al. (2015); (83) Currie et al. (2015); (84) Metchev & Hillenbrand (2006); (85) Tokovinin (2014); (86) Luhman et al. (2007); (87) Carson et al. (2013); (88) Hinkley et al. (2013); (89) Bonnefoy et al. (2014a); (90) Jones et al. 2016; (91) Reid & Walkowicz (2006); (92) Allers et al. (2010); (93) Gauza et al. (2015); (94) Stone et al. (2016); (95) Dupuy et al. (2015a); (96) Liu et al. (2012) a Inferred masses assume hot-start evolutionary models. b Multiplicity of the host star interior to the companion’s orbit. c LkCa 15 “b” from Kraus & Ireland (2012) is planet “c” in Sallum et al. (2015a). Here I use the original nomenclature from Kraus et al; LkCa15 c in this table is the candidate planet “b” from Sallum et al. d 33

TABLE 2 Directly Imaged Stellar and Substellar Companions Inducing Shallow Radial Velocity Trends

Name Separation Separation Nature of Comp. Mass Companion Planet dv/dt ′′ −1 −1 ( ) (AU) Companion (M⊙) SpT Host? (m s yr ) References HD 19467 B 1.65 51 BD 0.050 T5.5 No –1.37 ± 0.09 1, 2 HD 4747 B 0.60 11.3 BD 0.057 ··· No –30.7 ± 0.6a 3 HR 7672 B 0.5 18 BD 0.066 L4.5 No –24 ± 0.6a 4, 5 HIP 71898 B 3.0 30 LMS 0.074 L0 No 8.6 ± 0.4 6, 7, 8 HD 5608 B 0.6 34 LMS 0.10 ··· Yes –5.51 ± 0.45 9 HD 68017 B 0.59 13 LMS 0.15 [M5] No 16.3 ± 0.9a 10 HD 7449 B 0.54 18 LMS 0.2 [M4.5] Yes ···a 11 Gl 15 B 41 146 LMS 0.2 M3.5 Yes –0.27 ± 0.09 12 HD 104304 B 1.0 13 LMS 0.21 [M4] No ···a 13 HD 109272 B 1.2 59 LMS 0.28 ··· No 2.4 ± 0.2 9 HD 71881 B 0.85 35 LMS 0.29 [M3] No –10.3 ± 0.2 10 Kepler-444 BC 1.8 66 LMS 0.29+0.25 [M] Yes –7.8 ± 0.5 14 HD 164509 B 0.75 39 LMS 0.33 [M] Yes –3.3 ± 0.5 15 HD 126614 B 0.49 33 LMS 0.33 [M] Yes 16.2 ± 0.2 16 HD 197037 3.7 24 LMS 0.34 [M] Yes –1.9 ± 0.3 17 HAT-P-10 B 0.34 42 LMS 0.36 [M] Yes –5.1 ± 1.4 18, 19 HD 41004 A 0.5 22 LMS 0.4 K1 Yes 105 ± 10a 20, 21, 22 HD 77407 B 1.7 50 LMS 0.4 [M2] No ··· 23 γ Cep B 0.88 20 LMS 0.41 [M4] Yes ···a 24 HD 8375 C 0.3 17 LMS 0.5 [M1] No 52.9 ± 1.9 25 HD 196885 B 0.7 23 LMS 0.5 M1 Yes ···a 26, 27 HD 114174 B 0.69 18 WD 0.54 ··· No 61.1 ± 0.1a 28, 29 HD 8049 B 1.5 50 WD 0.56 ··· No ··· 30 HD 195109 B 2.4 92 LMS 0.58 ··· Yes 1.9 15 Gl 86 B 2.3 28 WD 0.59 DQ6 Yes 131 31–36 Procyon B 4.3 15 WD 0.59 DQZ No ···a 37, 38, 39 γ Hya B 1.6 66 LMS 0.61 ··· No 4.1 ± 0.2 9 HD 53665 B 0.14 103 LMS 0.7 [K7] No 5.3 ± 0.3 40

References. — (1) Crepp et al. (2014); (2) Crepp et al. (2015); (3) Crepp et al. (2016); (4) Liu et al. (2002); (5) Crepp et al. (2012a); (6) Montet et al. (2014); (7) Golimowski et al. (2004b) (8) Forveille et al. (2004); (9) Ryu et al. (2016); (10) Crepp et al. (2012b); (11) Rodigas et al. (2016); (12) Howard et al. (2014); (13) Schnupp et al. (2010); (14) Dupuy et al. (2016); (15) Bryan et al. (2016); (16) Howard et al. (2010); (17) Ginski et al. (2016); (18) Knutson et al. (2014); (19) Ngo et al. (2015); (20) Santos et al. (2002); (21) Zucker et al. (2003); (22) Zucker et al. (2004); (23) Mugrauer et al. (2004); (24) Neuh¨auser et al. (2007); (25) Crepp et al. (2013b); (26) Chauvin et al. (2007); (27) Chauvin et al. (2011); (28) Crepp et al. (2013a); (29) Matthews et al. (2014b); (30) Zurlo et al. (2013); (31) Queloz et al. (2000); (32) Els et al. (2001); (33) Mugrauer & Neuh¨auser (2005); (34) Chauvin et al. (2006); (35) Lagrange et al. (2006); (36) Farihi et al. (2013); (37) Irwin et al. (1992); (38) Torres (1999); (39) Bond et al. (2015); (40) Crepp et al. (2012b). a Radial velocities show both acceleration and curvature. 34

TABLE 3 The Frequency of 5–13 MJup Planets on Wide Orbits

Sample Number of Occurrence Rate Occurrence Rate Occurrence Rate Occurrence Rate Stars (10–100 AU) (30–300 AU) (10–1000 AU) (100–1000 AU) +9.0 +3.7 +4.7 BA 110 7.7−6.0% 2.8−2.3% 3.5−2.5% <6.4% FGK 155 <6.8% <4.1% <5.8% <5.1% M 118 <4.2% <3.9% <5.4% <7.3% +1.2 +0.7 +1.0 All Stars 384 0.8−0.5% 0.6−0.5% 0.8−0.6% <2.1% Note. — Assumes circular orbits, logarithmically-flat planet mass-period distributions, and hot- start evolutionary models from Baraffe et al. (2003). All binaries within 100 AU of the host stars have been removed. Occurrence rates are 68% credible intervals and upper limits are 95% confidence values. 35

APPENDIX ASTROMETRY OF HR 8799 BCDE AND β PIC B

TABLE 4 Astrometry of HR 8799 bcde and β Pic b Until 2016

UT Date Epoch Telescope/ ρ θ ∆R.A. ∆Dec Reference Instrument (′′) (◦) (′′) (′′)

HR 8799 b 1998 Oct 30 1998.828 HST /NICMOS 1.721 ± 0.012 55.1 ± 0.4 1.411 ± 0.009 0.986 ± 0.009 Lafreni`ere et al. (2009 1998 Oct 30a 1998.828 HST /NICMOS 1.738 ± 0.018 54.7 ± 0.4 [1.418 ± 0.016] [1.00 ± 0.014] Soummer et al. (2011 2002 Jul 19 2002.545 Subaru/CIAO [1.74 ± 0.03] [58.2 ± 0.6] 1.481 ± 0.023 0.919 ± 0.017 Fukagawa et al. (2009 2004 Jul 14 2004.534 Keck/NIRC2 [1.716 ± 0.007] [59.0 ± 0.17] 1.471 ± 0.005 0.884 ± 0.005 Marois et al. (2008 2005 Jul 15 2005.534 Keck/NIRC2 [1.724 ± 0.007] [60.2 ± 0.17] 1.496 ± 0.005 0.856 ± 0.005 Currie et al. (2012a 2007 Aug 02 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [1.726 ± 0.004] [61.8 ± 0.1] 1.522 ± 0.003 0.815 ± 0.003 Metchev et al. (2009 2007 Aug 02a 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [1.721 ± 0.004] [60.90 ± 0.10] 1.504 ± 0.003 0.837 ± 0.003 Konopacky et al. (2016 2007 Oct 25 2007.813 Gemini-N/NIRI [1.713 ± 0.007] [62.0 ± 0.17] 1.512 ± 0.005 0.805 ± 0.005 Marois et al. (2008 2007 Oct 25a 2007.813 Keck/NIRC2 [1.717 ± 0.010] [60.9 ± 0.2] 1.500 ± 0.007 0.836 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Jul 11 2008.523 Keck/NIRC2 [1.723 ± 0.006] [62.4 ± 0.13] 1.527 ± 0.004 0.799 ± 0.004 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Aug 12 2008.613 Keck/NIRC2 [1.724 ± 0.003] [62.3 ± 0.07] 1.527 ± 0.002 0.801 ± 0.002 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [1.724 ± 0.004] [62.4 ± 0.10] 1.528 ± 0.003 0.798 ± 0.003 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18a 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [1.723 ± 0.006] [61.65 ± 0.13] 1.516 ± 0.004 0.818 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Nov 21 2008.890 MMT/Clio [1.728 ± 0.017] [63.2 ± 0.4] 1.54 ± 0.01 0.780 ± 0.014 Hinz et al. (2010) 2008 Nov 21a 2008.890 MMT/Clio [1.73 ± 0.03] [62.5 ± 0.7] 1.532 ± 0.02 0.796 ± 0.02 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Aug 15 2009.619 Subaru/IRCS [1.725 ± 0.014] [62.9 ± 0.3] 1.536 ± 0.01 0.785 ± 0.01 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Sep 12 2009.695 MMT/Clio [1.72 ± 0.04] [63.2 ± 1.0] 1.538 ± 0.03 0.777 ± 0.03 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Oct 06 2009.761 VLT/NaCo [1.74 ± 0.03] [62.0 ± 0.7] 1.535 ± 0.02 0.816 ± 0.02 Bergfors et al. (2011 2009 Oct 08 2009.767 VLT/NaCo [1.720 ± 0.010] [62.9 ± 0.2] 1.532 ± 0.007 0.783 ± 0.007 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Jul 11 2009.523 Palomar/WCS 1.73 ± 0.10 62.9 ± 1.5 1.54 ± 0.04 0.79 ± 0.06 Serabyn et al. (2010 2009 Jul 30 2009.575 Keck/NIRC2 [1.721 ± 0.006] [62.42 ± 0.13] 1.526 ± 0.004 0.797 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Aug 01 2009.580 Keck/NIRC2 [1.725 ± 0.010] [62.6 ± 0.2] 1.531 ± 0.007 0.794 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [1.74 ± 0.03] [62.5 ± 0.6] 1.54 ± 0.019 0.80 ± 0.019 Galicher et al. (2011 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [1.719 ± 0.014] [62.5 ± 0.3] 1.524 ± 0.010 0.795 ± 0.010 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Jul 13 2010.528 Keck/NIRC2 [1.720 ± 0.007] [62.93 ± 0.17] 1.532 ± 0.005 0.783 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [1.716 ± 0.021] [63.5 ± 0.5] 1.535 ± 0.015 0.766 ± 0.015 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30a 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [1.717 ± 0.007] [64.2 ± 0.17] 1.546 ± 0.005 0.748 ± 0.005 Currie et al. (2012a 2011 Jul 21 2011.550 Keck/NIRC2 [1.719 ± 0.007] [63.69 ± 0.17] 1.541 ± 0.005 0.762 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2011 Oct 16 2011.789 LBT/PISCES [1.741 ± 0.016] [65.1 ± 0.4] 1.579 ± 0.011 0.734 ± 0.011 Esposito et al. (2012 2011 Nov 09 2011.854 LBT/PISCES [1.708 ± 0.016] [64.9 ± 0.4] 1.546 ± 0.011 0.725 ± 0.011 Esposito et al. (2012 2012 Jun 14 2012.452 Palomar/P1640 [1.715 ± 0.007] [65.7 ± 0.17] 1.563 ± 0.005 0.706 ± 0.005 Pueyo et al. (2015) 2012 Jul 22 2012.556 Keck/NIRC2 [1.716 ± 0.007] [64.20 ± 0.17] 1.545 ± 0.005 0.747 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2012 Oct 26 2012.819 Keck/NIRC2 [1.718 ± 0.006] [64.37 ± 0.13] 1.549 ± 0.004 0.743 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 16 2013.789 Keck/NIRC2 [1.706 ± 0.031] [64.9 ± 0.7] 1.545 ± 0.022 0.724 ± 0.022 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 21 2013.802 LBT/LMIRCam 1.717 ± 0.013 65.46 ± 0.44 1.562 ± 0.008 0.713 ± 0.013 Maire et al. (2015a 2014 Jul 13 2014.528 VLT/SPHERE [1.722 ± 0.008] [65.8 ± 1.7] 1.570 ± 0.006 0.707 ± 0.006 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Jul 17 2014.539 Keck/NIRC2 [1.720 ± 0.018] [65.1 ± 0.4] 1.560 ± 0.013 0.725 ± 0.013 Konopacky et al. (2016 2014 Dec 04–08 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE [1.724 ± 0.007] [65.9 ± 0.17] 1.574 ± 0.005 0.703 ± 0.005 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 05–09 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE 1.729 ± 0.007 65.93 ± 0.15 [1.579 ± 0.007] [0.705 ± 0.007] Apai et al. (2016)

HR 8799 c 1998 Oct 30 1998.828 HST /NICMOS 0.966 ± 0.022 300 ± 0.8 [–0.84 ± 0.02] [0.483 ± 0.016] Soummer et al. (2011 2004 Jul 14 2004.534 Keck/NIRC2 [0.960 ± 0.007] [309.6 ± 0.3] –0.739 ± 0.005 0.612 ± 0.005 Marois et al. (2008 2005 Jul 15 2005.534 Keck/NIRC2 [0.951 ± 0.007] [311.5 ± 0.3] –0.713 ± 0.005 0.630 ± 0.005 Currie et al. (2012a 2007 Aug 02 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [0.952 ± 0.007] [315.1 ± 0.3] –0.672 ± 0.005 0.674 ± 0.005 Metchev et al. (2009 2007 Aug 02a 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [0.957 ± 0.006] [314.5 ± 0.2] –0.683 ± 0.004 0.671 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2007 Oct 25 2007.813 Gemini-N/NIRI [0.958 ± 0.007] [315.3 ± 0.3] –0.674 ± 0.005 0.681 ± 0.005 Marois et al. (2008 2007 Oct 25a 2007.813 Keck/NIRC2 [0.957 ± 0.010] [314.9 ± 0.4] –0.678 ± 0.007 0.676 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Jul 11 2008.523 Keck/NIRC2 [0.961 ± 0.006] [316.8 ± 0.2] –0.658 ± 0.004 0.701 ± 0.004 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Aug 12 2008.613 Keck/NIRC2 [0.964 ± 0.003] [317.06 ± 0.12] –0.657 ± 0.002 0.706 ± 0.002 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [0.964 ± 0.004] [317.06 ± 0.18] –0.657 ± 0.003 0.706 ± 0.003 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18a 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [0.959 ± 0.004] [316.27 ± 0.18] –0.663 ± 0.003 0.693 ± 0.003 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Nov 21 2008.890 MMT/Clio [0.921 ± 0.03] [316.8 ± 1.1] –0.631 ± 0.015 0.671 ± 0.02 Hinz et al. (2010) 2008 Nov 21a 2008.890 MMT/Clio [0.958 ± 0.03] [316.9 ± 1.2] –0.654 ± 0.02 0.700 ± 0.02 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Jan 09 2009.022 MMT/Clio [0.90 ± 0.04] [317.4 ± 1.9] –0.612 ± 0.03 0.665 ± 0.03 Hinz et al. (2010) 2009 Jul 11 2009.523 Palomar/WCS 1.00 ± 0.06 315.9 ± 1.5 –0.70 ± 0.05 0.72 ± 0.05 Serabyn et al. (2010 2009 Jul 30 2009.575 Keck/NIRC2 [0.957 ± 0.006] [318.1 ± 0.2] –0.639 ± 0.004 0.712 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Aug 01 2009.580 Keck/NIRC2 [0.962 ± 0.013] [318.7 ± 0.5] –0.635 ± 0.009 0.722 ± 0.009 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Sep 12 2009.695 MMT/Clio [0.96 ± 0.03] [319.2 ± 1.2] –0.625 ± 0.02 0.725 ± 0.02 Hinz et al. (2010) 2009 Sep 12a 2009.695 MMT/Clio [0.942 ± 0.04] [317.7 ± 1.8] –0.634 ± 0.03 0.697 ± 0.03 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Oct 06 2009.761 VLT/NaCo [0.940 ± 0.06] [317 ± 2] –0.636 ± 0.04 0.692 ± 0.04 Bergfors et al. (2011 2009 Oct 08 2009.767 VLT/NaCo [0.952 ± 0.010] [318.8 ± 0.4] –0.627 ± 0.007 0.716 ± 0.007 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.957 ± 0.018] [318.8 ± 0.8] –0.63 ± 0.013 0.72 ± 0.013 Galicher et al. (2011 36 TABLE 4 — Continued

UT Date Epoch Telescope/ ρ θ ∆R.A. ∆Dec Reference Instrument (′′) (◦) (′′) (′′) 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.961 ± 0.013] [318.5 ± 0.5] –0.636 ± 0.009 0.720 ± 0.009 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Jul 13 2010.528 Keck/NIRC2 [0.956 ± 0.006] [319.6 ± 0.2] –0.619 ± 0.004 0.728 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [0.960 ± 0.017] [320.8 ± 0.7] –0.607 ± 0.012 0.744 ± 0.012 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30 2010.827a Keck/NIRC2 [0.949 ± 0.007] [320.9 ± 0.3] –0.598 ± 0.005 0.737 ± 0.005 Currie et al. (2012a 2011 Jul 21 2011.550 Keck/NIRC2 [0.955 ± 0.006] [321.5 ± 0.2] –0.595 ± 0.004 0.747 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2011 Oct 16 2011.789 LBT/PISCES [0.938 ± 0.014] [323.3 ± 0.6] –0.561 ± 0.010 0.752 ± 0.010 Esposito et al. (2012 2011 Nov 09 2011.854 LBT/PISCES [0.960 ± 0.014] [323.0 ± 0.6] –0.578 ± 0.010 0.767 ± 0.010 Esposito et al. (2012 2012 Jun 14 2012.452 Palomar/P1640 [0.947 ± 0.006] [323.9 ± 0.2] –0.558 ± 0.004 0.765 ± 0.004 Pueyo et al. (2015) 2012 Jul 22 2012.556 Keck/NIRC2 [0.956 ± 0.007] [322.8 ± 0.3] –0.578 ± 0.005 0.761 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2012 Oct 26 2012.819 Keck/NIRC2 [0.958 ± 0.004] [323.32 ± 0.18] –0.572 ± 0.003 0.768 ± 0.003 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 16 2013.789 Keck/NIRC2 [0.953 ± 0.031] [325.3 ± 1.3] –0.542 ± 0.022 0.784 ± 0.022 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 21 2013.802 LBT/LMIRCam 0.951 ± 0.014 325.5 ± 0.9 –0.538 ± 0.006 0.784 ± 0.013 Maire et al. (2015a 2014 Jul 13 2014.528 VLT/SPHERE [0.948 ± 0.006] [326.6 ± 0.2] –0.522 ± 0.004 0.791 ± 0.004 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Jul 17 2014.539 Keck/NIRC2 [0.964 ± 0.018] [325.9 ± 0.8] –0.540 ± 0.013 0.799 ± 0.013 Konopacky et al. (2016 2014 Dec 04–08 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE [0.951 ± 0.006] [327.0 ± 0.2] –0.518 ± 0.004 0.797 ± 0.004 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 05–09 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE 0.947 ± 0.007 327.8 ± 0.4 [–0.504 ± 0.007] [0.802 ± 0.007] Apai et al. (2016)

HR 8799 d 1998 Oct 30 1998.828 HST /NICMOS 0.549 ± 0.028 166 ± 3 [0.13 ± 0.03] [–0.53 ± 0.03] Soummer et al. (2011 2005 Jul 15 2005.534 Keck/NIRC2 [0.585 ± 0.014] [188.6 ± 1.0] –0.087 ± 0.010 –0.578 ± 0.010 Currie et al. (2012a 2007 Aug 02 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [0.613 ± 0.011] [196.1 ± 0.7] –0.170 ± 0.008 –0.589 ± 0.008 Metchev et al. (2009 2007 Aug 02a,b 2007.583 Keck/NIRC2 [0.615 ± 0.007] [196.9 ± 0.5] –0.179 ± 0.005 –0.588 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2007 Oct 25a 2007.813 Keck/NIRC2 [0.614 ± 0.014] [196.5 ± 0.9] –0.175 ± 0.010 –0.589 ± 0.010 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Jul 11 2008.523 Keck/NIRC2 [0.618 ± 0.006] [199.7 ± 0.4] –0.208 ± 0.004 –0.582 ± 0.004 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Aug 12 2008.613 Keck/NIRC2 [0.621 ± 0.003] [200.36 ± 0.18] –0.216 ± 0.002 –0.582 ± 0.002 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [0.621 ± 0.004] [200.4 ± 0.3] –0.216 ± 0.003 –0.582 ± 0.003 Marois et al. (2008 2008 Sep 18a 2008.715 Keck/NIRC2 [0.622 ± 0.006] [199.0 ± 0.4] –0.202 ± 0.004 –0.588 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2008 Nov 21 2008.890 MMT/Clio [0.68 ± 0.02] [198.9 ± 1.7] –0.22 ± 0.021 –0.644 ± 0.013 Hinz et al. (2010) 2008 Nov 21a 2008.890 MMT/Clio [0.646 ± 0.03] [199.6 ± 1.8] –0.217 ± 0.02 –0.608 ± 0.02 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Jul 11 2009.523 Palomar/WCS 0.64 ± 0.04 197.5 ± 1.5 –0.19 ± 0.07 –0.61 ± 0.03 Serabyn et al. (2010 2009 Jul 30 2009.575 Keck/NIRC2 [0.624 ± 0.004] [202.3 ± 0.3] –0.237 ± 0.003 –0.577 ± 0.003 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Aug 01 2009.580 Keck/NIRC2 [0.622 ± 0.010] [203.7 ± 0.6] –0.250 ± 0.007 –0.570 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Sep 12 2009.695 MMT/Clio [0.65 ± 0.04] [205 ± 3] –0.28 ± 0.03 –0.59 ± 0.03 Hinz et al. (2010) 2009 Oct 06 2009.761 VLT/NaCo [0.66 ± 0.10] [204 ± 6] –0.270 ± 0.07 –0.600 ± 0.07 Bergfors et al. (2011 2009 Oct 08 2009.767 VLT/NaCo [0.634 ± 0.010] [202.4 ± 0.6] –0.241 ± 0.007 –0.586 ± 0.007 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.63 ± 0.02] [202.5 ± 1.3] –0.24 ± 0.014 –0.58 ± 0.014 Galicher et al. (2011 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.626 ± 0.010] [203.7 ± 0.6] –0.251 ± 0.007 –0.573 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Jul 13 2010.528 Keck/NIRC2 [0.634 ± 0.006] [204.7 ± 0.4] –0.265 ± 0.004 –0.576 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [0.634 ± 0.018] [207.8 ± 1.2] –0.296 ± 0.013 –0.561 ± 0.013 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Oct 30a 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [0.634 ± 0.007] [206.5 ± 0.6] –0.283 ± 0.005 –0.567 ± 0.005 Currie et al. (2012a 2011 Jul 21 2011.550 Keck/NIRC2 [0.638 ± 0.007] [208.3 ± 0.4] –0.303 ± 0.005 –0.562 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2011 Oct 16 2011.789 LBT/PISCES [0.637 ± 0.014] [208.0 ± 0.9] –0.299 ± 0.010 –0.563 ± 0.010 Esposito et al. (2012 2011 Nov 09 2011.854 LBT/PISCES [0.635 ± 0.014] [210.2 ± 0.9] –0.320 ± 0.010 –0.549 ± 0.010 Esposito et al. (2012 2012 Jun 14 2012.452 Palomar/P1640 [0.620 ± 0.008] [211.4 ± 0.6] –0.323 ± 0.006 –0.529 ± 0.006 Pueyo et al. (2015) 2012 Jul 22 2012.556 Keck/NIRC2 [0.650 ± 0.007] [211.4 ± 0.4] –0.339 ± 0.005 –0.555 ± 0.005 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 16 2013.789 Keck/NIRC2 [0.647 ± 0.023] [216.2 ± 1.4] –0.382 ± 0.016 –0.522 ± 0.016 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 21 2013.802 LBT/LMIRCam 0.657 ± 0.013 215.0 ± 1.2 –0.377 ± 0.007 –0.538 ± 0.011 Maire et al. (2015a 2012 Oct 26 2012.819 Keck/NIRC2 [0.648 ± 0.006] [212.3 ± 0.4] –0.346 ± 0.004 –0.548 ± 0.004 Konopacky et al. (2016 2014 Jul 13 2014.528 VLT/SPHERE [0.658 ± 0.008] [216.3 ± 0.5] –0.390 ± 0.005 –0.530 ± 0.006 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Jul 17 2014.539 Keck/NIRC2 [0.667 ± 0.016] [216.8 ± 0.9] –0.400 ± 0.011 –0.534 ± 0.011 Konopacky et al. (2016 2014 Aug 12 2014.611 VLT/SPHERE [0.658 ± 0.006] [216.5 ± 0.3] –0.391 ± 0.004 –0.529 ± 0.004 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 04–08 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE [0.660 ± 0.006] [217.5 ± 0.3] –0.402 ± 0.004 –0.523 ± 0.004 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 05–09 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE 0.654 ± 0.007 217.6 ± 0.8 [–0.400 ± 0.009] [–0.518 ± 0.008] Apai et al. (2016)

HR 8799 e 2009 Jul 30 2009.575 Keck/NIRC2 [0.372 ± 0.010] [235.4 ± 1.1] –0.306 ± 0.007 –0.211 ± 0.007 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Jul 31 2009.578 Keck/NIRC2 [0.369 ± 0.03] [234 ± 3] –0.299 ± 0.019 –0.217 ± 0.019 Marois et al. (2010b 2009 Aug 01 2009.580 Keck/NIRC2 [0.368 ± 0.018] [235 ± 2] –0.303 ± 0.013 –0.209 ± 0.013 Marois et al. (2010b 2009 Aug 01a 2009.580 Keck/NIRC2 [0.373 ± 0.014] [238.5 ± 1.5] –0.318 ± 0.010 –0.195 ± 0.010 Konopacky et al. (2016 2009 Oct 08 2009.767 VLT/NaCo [0.375 ± 0.010] [234.7 ± 1.1] –0.306 ± 0.007 –0.217 ± 0.007 Currie et al. (2011b 2009 Nov 01 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.362 ± 0.014] [237.2 ± 1.6] –0.304 ± 0.010 –0.196 ± 0.010 Marois et al. (2010b 2009 Nov 01a 2009.832 Keck/NIRC2 [0.362 ± 0.013] [238.9 ± 1.4] –0.310 ± 0.009 –0.187 ± 0.009 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Jul 13 2010.528 Keck/NIRC2 [0.368 ± 0.011] [242.0 ± 1.3] –0.325 ± 0.008 –0.173 ± 0.008 Marois et al. (2010b 2010 Jul 13a 2010.528 Keck/NIRC2 [0.363 ± 0.008] [242.8 ± 1.0] –0.323 ± 0.006 –0.166 ± 0.006 Konopacky et al. (2016 2010 Jul 21 2010.550 Keck/NIRC2 [0.368 ± 0.016] [241.6 ± 1.7] –0.324 ± 0.011 –0.175 ± 0.011 Marois et al. (2010b 2010 Oct 30 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [0.371 ± 0.014] [244.1 ± 1.5] –0.334 ± 0.010 –0.162 ± 0.010 Marois et al. (2010b 2010 Oct 30a 2010.827 Keck/NIRC2 [0.370 ± 0.027] [247.2 ± 2.5] –0.341 ± 0.016 –0.143 ± 0.016 Konopacky et al. (2016 2011 Jul 21 2011.550 Keck/NIRC2 [0.375 ± 0.011] [249.7 ± 1.2] –0.352 ± 0.008 –0.130 ± 0.008 Konopacky et al. (2016 2011 Oct 16 2011.789 LBT/PISCES [0.347 ± 0.016] [249.9 ± 1.8] –0.326 ± 0.011 –0.119 ± 0.011 Esposito et al. (2012 2011 Nov 09 2011.854 LBT/PISCES [0.403 ± 0.016] [251.6 ± 1.6] –0.382 ± 0.011 –0.127 ± 0.011 Esposito et al. (2012 2012 Jun 14 2012.452 Palomar/P1640 [0.377 ± 0.008] [256.2 ± 0.9] –0.366 ± 0.006 –0.090 ± 0.006 Pueyo et al. (2015) 2012 Jul 22 2012.556 Keck/NIRC2 [0.382 ± 0.011] [257.3 ± 1.2] –0.373 ± 0.008 –0.084 ± 0.008 Konopacky et al. (2016 2012 Oct 26 2012.819 Keck/NIRC2 [0.378 ± 0.013] [258.4 ± 1.4] –0.370 ± 0.009 –0.076 ± 0.009 Konopacky et al. (2016 37 TABLE 4 — Continued

UT Date Epoch Telescope/ ρ θ ∆R.A. ∆Dec Reference Instrument (′′) (◦) (′′) (′′) 2013 Oct 16 2013.789 Keck/NIRC2 [0.373 ± 0.018] [267.4 ± 2.0] –0.373 ± 0.013 –0.017 ± 0.013 Konopacky et al. (2016 2013 Oct 21 2013.802 LBT/LMIRCam 0.395 ± 0.012 264.8 ± 1.7 –0.394 ± 0.011 –0.036 ± 0.017 Maire et al. (2015a 2014 Jul 13 2014.528 VLT/SPHERE [0.386 ± 0.012] [268.8 ± 1.3] –0.386 ± 0.009 –0.008 ± 0.009 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Jul 17 2014.539 Keck/NIRC2 [0.387 ± 0.016] [270.4 ± 1.7] –0.387 ± 0.011 0.003 ± 0.011 Konopacky et al. (2016 2014 Aug 12 2014.611 VLT/SPHERE [0.384 ± 0.003] [269.3 ± 0.3] –0.384 ± 0.002 –0.005 ± 0.002 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 04–08 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE [0.384 ± 0.014] [272.1 ± 1.5] –0.384 ± 0.010 0.014 ± 0.010 Zurlo et al. (2016) 2014 Dec 05–09 2014.93 VLT/SPHERE 0.381 ± 0.007 272.5 ± 0.7 [–0.381 ± 0.007] [0.016 ± 0.005] Apai et al. (2016)

β Pic b 2003 Nov 10 2003.857 VLT/NaCo 0.411 ± 0.008 31.8 ± 1.3 [0.217 ± 0.009] [0.349 ± 0.008] Lagrange et al. (2009a 2003 Nov 10 2003.857 VLT/NaCo 0.411 ± 0.008 31.5 ± 1.3 [0.215 ± 0.009] [0.350 ± 0.008] Lagrange et al. (2009a 2003 Nov 10a 2003.857 VLT/NaCo 0.413 ± 0.022 34.4 ± 3.5 [0.233 ± 0.022] 0.341 ± 0.022 Chauvin et al. (2012 2003 Nov 13 2003.865 VLT/NaCo 0.401 ± 0.008 32.1 ± 1.4 [0.213 ± 0.009] [0.340 ± 0.009] Lagrange et al. (2009a 2008 Nov 11 2008.862 VLT/NaCo 0.210 ± 0.027 211.5 ± 1.9 [–0.110 ± 0.015] [–0.179 ± 0.023] Currie et al. (2011a 2009 Oct 25 2009.813 VLT/NaCo 0.298 ± 0.016 210.6 ± 3.6 [–0.152 ± 0.018] [–0.257 ± 0.017] Lagrange et al. (2010 2009 Oct 25a 2009.813 VLT/NaCo 0.299 ± 0.014 210.7 ± 2.9 –0.153 ± 0.014 –0.257 ± 0.014 Chauvin et al. (2012 2009 Nov–Decc 2009.9 VLT/NaCo 0.299 ± 0.016 209.4 ± 3.5 [–0.147 ± 0.018] [–0.260 ± 0.017] Lagrange et al. (2010 2009 Dec 03 2009.920 Gemini-S/NICI 0.323 ± 0.010 209.3 ± 1.8 [–0.158 ± 0.010] [–0.282 ± 0.010] Nielsen et al. (2014 2009 Dec 03 2009.920 Gemini-S/NICI 0.339 ± 0.010 209.2 ± 1.7 [–0.165 ± 0.010] [–0.296 ± 0.010] Nielsen et al. (2014 2009 Dec 26 2009.983 VLT/NaCo 0.302 ± 0.016 212.8 ± 3.7 [–0.164 ± 0.019] [–0.254 ± 0.017] Lagrange et al. (2010 2009 Dec 26a 2009.983 VLT/NaCo 0.299 ± 0.013 211.1 ± 1.7 [–0.154 ± 0.010] [–0.256 ± 0.012] Milli et al. (2014) 2009 Dec 29 2009.991 VLT/NaCo 0.314 ± 0.016 211.5 ± 3.5 [–0.164 ± 0.018] [–0.268 ± 0.017] Lagrange et al. (2010 2009 Dec 29a 2009.991 VLT/NaCo 0.326 ± 0.013 210.6 ± 1.2 [–0.166 ± 0.009] [–0.280 ± 0.012] Currie et al. (2011a 2009 Dec 29a 2009.991 VLT/NaCo 0.306 ± 0.009 212.1 ± 1.7 –0.163 ± 0.009] [–0.260 ± 0.008 Chauvin et al. (2012 2010 Mar 20d 2010.214 VLT/NaCo 0.345 ± 0.007 209.4 ± 0.3 [–0.169 ± 0.004] [–0.301 ± 0.006] Bonnefoy et al. (2011 2010 Apr 03 2010.252 VLT/NaCo+APP 0.354 ± 0.012 209.1 ± 2.1 [–0.172 ± 0.013] [–0.309 ± 0.012] Quanz et al. (2010 2010 Apr 10d 2010.271 VLT/NaCo 0.355 ± 0.002 208.4 ± 1.1 [–0.169 ± 0.006] [–0.312 ± 0.004] Bonnefoy et al. (2011 2010 Apr 10a 2010.271 VLT/NaCo 0.346 ± 0.007 209.9 ± 1.2 –0.173 ± 0.007 –0.300 ± 0.007 Chauvin et al. (2012 2010 Sep 28 2010.739 VLT/NaCo 0.383 ± 0.011 210.3 ± 1.7 –0.193 ± 0.011 –0.331 ± 0.011 Chauvin et al. (2012 2010 Sep 28a 2010.739 VLT/NaCo 0.385 ± 0.011 210.1 ± 1.5 [–0.193 ± 0.010] [–0.333 ± 0.011] Milli et al. (2014) 2010 Nov 16 2010.873 VLT/NaCo 0.387 ± 0.008 212.4 ± 1.4 –0.207 ± 0.008 –0.326 ± 0.010 Chauvin et al. (2012 2010 Nov 17 2010.876 VLT/NaCo 0.390 ± 0.013 212.3 ± 2.1 –0.209 ± 0.013 –0.330 ± 0.014 Chauvin et al. (2012 2010 Dec 25 2010.980 Gemini-S/NICI 0.404 ± 0.010 212.1 ± 0.7 [–0.215 ± 0.007] [–0.342 ± 0.009] Boccaletti et al. (2013 2010 Dec 25a 2010.980 Gemini-S/NICI 0.407 ± 0.005 212.9 ± 1.4 [–0.221 ± 0.009] [–0.342 ± 0.007] Nielsen et al. (2014 2011 Jan 02 2011.003 VLT/NaCo 0.408 ± 0.009 211.1 ± 1.5 –0.211 ± 0.009 –0.350 ± 0.010 Chauvin et al. (2012 2011 Mar 26 2011.230 VLT/NaCo 0.426 ± 0.013 210.1 ± 1.8 –0.214 ± 0.012 –0.367 ± 0.014 Chauvin et al. (2012 2011 Oct 12 2011.778 VLT/NaCo 0.439 ± 0.005 212.9 ± 0.5 [–0.238 ± 0.003] [–0.369 ± 0.003] Milli et al. (2014) 2011 Oct 20 2011.800 Gemini-S/NICI 0.455 ± 0.003 211.9 ± 0.4 [–0.240 ± 0.003] [–0.386 ± 0.003] Nielsen et al. (2014 2011 Oct 20 2011.800 Gemini-S/NICI 0.452 ± 0.005 211.6 ± 0.6 [–0.237 ± 0.005] [–0.385 ± 0.005] Nielsen et al. (2014 2011 Dec 11 2011.942 VLT/NaCo 0.441 ± 0.003 212.9 ± 0.3 [–0.240 ± 0.003] [–0.370 ± 0.003] Milli et al. (2014) 2012 Mar 29 2012.341 Gemini-S/NICI 0.447 ± 0.003 210.8 ± 0.4 [–0.229 ± 0.003] [–0.384 ± 0.003] Nielsen et al. (2014 2012 Mar 29 2012.341 Gemini-S/NICI 0.448 ± 0.005 211.8 ± 0.6 [–0.236 ± 0.005] [–0.381 ± 0.005] Nielsen et al. (2014 2012 Nov 01 2012.835 VLT/NaCo 0.456 ± 0.011 211.9 ± 2.3 –0.241 ± 0.013 –0.387 ± 0.014 Bonnefoy et al. (2013 2012 Dec 04 2012.925 Magellan/MagAO 0.470 ± 0.010 212.0 ± 1.2 [–0.249 ± 0.010] [–0.399 ± 0.010] Males et al. (2014) 2012 Dec 01–07 2012.92 Magellan/MagAO 0.461 ± 0.014 211.9 ± 1.2 [–0.244 ± 0.011] [–0.391 ± 0.013] Morzinski et al. (2015 2012 Dec 16 2012.958 VLT/NaCo 0.449 ± 0.006 211.6 ± 0.7 [–0.235 ± 0.006] [–0.382 ± 0.006] Milli et al. (2014) 2013 Jan 31 2013.082 VLT/NaCo+AGPM 0.452 ± 0.010 211.2 ± 1.3 [–0.234 ± 0.010] [–0.387 ± 0.010] Absil et al. (2013) 2013 Jan 31a 2013.082 VLT/NaCo+AGPM 0.448 ± 0.004 212.3 ± 0.3 [–0.239 ± 0.003] [–0.379 ± 0.004] Milli et al. (2014) 2013 Nov 16 2013.873 Gemini-S/GPI 0.430 ± 0.003 212.3 ± 0.4 [–0.230 ± 0.003] [–0.363 ± 0.003] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Nov 16 2013.873 Gemini-S/GPI 0.426 ± 0.003 212.8 ± 0.4 [–0.231 ± 0.003] [–0.358 ± 0.003] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Nov 18 2013.879 Gemini-S/GPI 0.434 ± 0.006 211.8 ± 0.5 [–0.229 ± 0.005] [–0.369 ± 0.005] Macintosh et al. (2014 2013 Nov 18a 2013.879 Gemini-S/GPI 0.428 ± 0.003 212.2 ± 0.4 [–0.228 ± 0.003] [–0.362 ± 0.003] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Dec 10 2013.939 Gemini-S/GPI 0.430 ± 0.010 211.6 ± 1.3 [–0.225 ± 0.010] [–0.366 ± 0.010] Bonnefoy et al. (2014b 2013 Dec 10a 2013.939 Gemini-S/GPI 0.419 ± 0.006 212.2 ± 0.8 [–0.223 ± 0.006] [–0.355 ± 0.006] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Dec 10 2013.939 Gemini-S/GPI 0.419 ± 0.004 212.6 ± 0.5 [–0.226 ± 0.004] [–0.353 ± 0.004] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Dec 11 2013.939 Gemini-S/GPI 0.419 ± 0.005 212.3 ± 0.7 [–0.224 ± 0.005] [–0.354 ± 0.005] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2013 Dec 12 2013.945 Gemini-S/GPI 0.427 ± 0.007 211.8 ± 0.7 [–0.225 ± 0.006] [–0.363 ± 0.007] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2014 Mar 23 2014.222 Gemini-S/GPI 0.413 ± 0.003 212.1 ± 0.4 [–0.219 ± 0.003] [–0.350 ± 0.003] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2014 Nov 08 2014.852 Gemini-S/GPI 0.363 ± 0.004 212.2 ± 0.7 [–0.193 ± 0.004] [–0.307 ± 0.004] Millar-Blanchaer et al. ( 2015 Jan 24 2015.063 Gemini-S/GPI 0.348 ± 0.005 212.2 ± 0.7 [–0.185 ± 0.004] [–0.294 ± 0.005] Millar-Blanchaer et al. (

Note. — Astrometry listed in brackets either in ρ and θ or ∆R.A. and ∆Dec is inferred from published measurements. a Re-reduction of published data. b Konopacky et al. (2016) note that this epoch of astrometry for HR 8799 d may be biased because the primary is positioned near the edge of the coronagraph. c Sum of observations taken on 2009 Nov 24, Nov 25, and Dec 17. d Bonnefoy et al. (2011) report astrometry using two reduction procedures for each data set. Values listed here are the weighted average of both methods.